( 2026:JHHC:18229 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 4519 of 2025 ---- 1. Manish Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Nawal Kishore Prasad, resident of Rohini Shahid Sthal, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. 2. Bhola Bharti, aged about 45 years, son of Late Ritlal Yadav, resident of Village Baghnocha, Rakhabani, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand. 3. Jai Prakash Sagar, aged about 44 years, son of Manbahal Pandit, resident of Village Khandhar, P.O. Bhagaiya, P.S. Meharma, District Godda, Jharkhand. 4 Sachin Suman, aged about 32 years, son of Nem Chandra Mandal, resident of Ghormara, P.O. Ghormara, P.S. Mohanpur, Deoghar, Jharkhand. District 5. Md. Taukir Alam, aged 36 years, son of Late Marfat Alam, resident of Hazi Badal Tola, Samaspur, P.O. and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj. 6. Sandeep Kumar Mahto, aged36about son of yend Narayan Chandra Mahto, resident of Jamdehi, P.O Karaya, P.S Bindapathar, District Jamtara, Jharkhand .......Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Commissioner, Santhal Paragana Division, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand. 5. The Regional Education Joint Director, Santhal Paragana Division, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand. .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, Advocate ( 2026:JHHC:18229 ) : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, Advocate --- 04/ Dated: 12.06.2026 1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for the following relief(s) i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order (s) for quashing of point no.4 of the notice dated 10.07.2025 as contained in memo no. 2300 (Annexure-2) issued under the signature of respondent no.3 which has been published in daily paper news dated 11.07.2025, through which, the allocation of district under the division to the employee opting for district cadre will be done by the Directorate, the same is contrary to the notification no. 2647 dated 20.09.2024 issued under the signature of In-charge Secretary to the Government in pursuance of gazette notification no. 223 dated 15.05.2025. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction (s) commanding upon the concerned respondents particularly the respondent no.3 to make necessary correction in point no.4 of notice dated 10.07.2025, which was published in pursuance of the notification no. 2647 dated 20.09.2024 and further notification no. 1749 dated 27.03.2010 since the same is contrary to the notification and there is ambiguity in the memo no. 2300 dated 10.07.2025. iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) commanding upon the concerned respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioners, which was filed on 18.07.2025 and requested before the respondent no.3 to make necessary correction in point no.4 of notice dated 10.07.2025, which was published in pursuance of the notification no. 2647 dated 20.09.2024 and further notification no. 1749 dated 27.03.2010. iv. The petitioners further pray that during the pendency of the present writ petition, operation of the impugned notice dated 10.07.2025 as contained in memo no. 2300 (Annexure-2), issued under the signature of respondent no.3, may kindly be stayed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that point no. 4 of notice dated 10.07.2025 (Annexure-2) is not in accordance with law and the same has to be deleted in view of the fact that the same is contradictory to Notification No. 2647 dated 20.09.2024 which ( 2026:JHHC:18229 ) is in pursuance to the Gazette Notification No. 223 dated 15.05.2025. 3. Accordingly, the learned counsel contended that the respondents be directed to rectify point no. 4 of the notice dated 10.07.2025. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein it has been stated that options have been invited from the employees for exercising their choice between the district cadre and the division cadre, and the process is still at initial stage. Accordingly, the petitioners should approach the 2nd respondent. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid averments made in para-12 of the counter-affidavit, interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the petitioners firstly, to approach the 2nd respondent by filing a joint representation within 6 weeks, and thereafter, the concerned respondent is directed to look into the matter as expeditiously as possible and take a decision in the matter within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of such representation and thereafter, the petitioners would avail the opportunity of options as stated in para-12 of the counter-affidavit. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Abha/- 12.06.2026