Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:6319-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 257 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Water Resource Department, having office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. 3. The Under Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. and P.S.- Doranda, District – Ranchi. ... Respondents/Appellants 1. Ashish Kumar, aged about 45 years, son of Late Umesh Chandra Shrivastava, resident of – 304 Aditya Enclave, Devi Mandap, Don Bosco School Road Hesag, P.O.- Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. Petitioner/Respondent 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand. ... Respondent/Proforma Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellants: Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V For the Respondent: Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate --------- 05/Dated: 10.03.2026 I.A. No. 1385 of 2025 1. Heard Mr. Toppo, learned G.A.-V appearing for the applicants, and Mr. Shubham Mayank, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 30 days in instituting the appeal. 3. Apart from that the delay is not inordinate, sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of this Interlocutory Application. L.P.A. No. 257 of 2025 4. With the consent of and at the request of counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard after condoning the delay in its institution. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:6319-DB 5. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27th of November 2024, by which the learned Single Judge allowed respondent’s W.P. (S) No. 4052 of 2024, quashed the termination order and directed that the respondent be allowed to continue in services till regular appointments are made. 6. Mr. Toppo, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the respondent’s appointment was only contractual and therefore, the respondent had no right as such to continue in service. He submitted that since this crucial aspect was not considered, the impugned order warrants interference. 7. Mr. Mayank, learned counsel for the respondent, defends the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He, in fact, adds that the services of the respondent should have been regularised. 8. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the records and the impugned order. We are satisfied that the impugned order calls for no interference. 9. It is well settled that ordinarily, one ad-hoc appointment should not be replaced by another. The records show that the respondent had worked for a little more than 10 years before his services were summarily discontinued. The records also show that the respondent applied for regularization in 2024 and soon thereafter, his services were ordered to be discontinued. 10. There is nothing on record to indicate that the respondent’s services were terminated to make way for any regular appointees. Therefore, we are satisfied that such termination, it was intended only Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:6319-DB to facilitate appointing another employee on contractual basis or because the respondent sought for regular appointment, was neither fair nor just. 11. Even the learned Single Judge, has only directed that the respondent should be allowed to continue in service till regular appointments are made. Further directions are issued to consider the case of the respondent for regular appointment, as and when regular appointments are proposed. 12. There is nothing illegal in the impugned order so as to warrant any interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without any order for costs. 13. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) March 10, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/ Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 11.03.2026