2026:JHHC:17854 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.510 of 2026 ----- Rakesh Kumar, son of Arun Prasad Yadav, resident of village- Mudiyar, P.O.- Nawadih, P.S. Saraiyahat, District-Dumka, Jharkhand-814151. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Sri Uma Shankar Singh, Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Sri Manoj Kumar Ranjan, the Director Primary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. Sri Hemant Sati, Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj. 5. Sri Harsh Kumar, District Superintendent of Education, Sahibganj. .......... Opp. Parties. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the O.P. Nos.2 to 5: A.C. to S.C.-VII ----- Order No.02 Date: 19.06.2026 1. The present contempt application has been filed for initiation of contempt proceeding as against the Opposite Party Nos.2 to 5 alleging wilful violation of the order dated 12th December, 2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.5910 of 2023. 2. A show-cause affidavit dated 19th June, 2026 has been filed on behalf of the O.P. No.5 stating inter alia that in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner’s candidature has been duly considered and rejected. It is, thus, submitted that the order dated 12th December, 2023 passed by this Court has now been complied. 3. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is highly illegal and arbitrary. 2026:JHHC:17854 2 4. Be that as it may. Since in compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner’s candidature has been considered afresh and has been rejected, there is no need to proceed further in the present contempt matter. The contempt proceeding as against the O.P. Nos.2 to 5 is, hereby, dropped. 5. The contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of. 6. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take appropriate recourse as permissible under law for redressal of his subsisting grievance. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 19th June, 2026 Rohit/ Uploaded on 19.06.2026