Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17800 (JHR)

SANJIT KUMAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

LPA/120/2026 · 2026-06-23

Rajesh Shankar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18272-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 120 of 2026 Sanjit Kumar Singh, aged about 44 years, S/o Late Mahabir Prasad Singh, R/o Village- Bhojpur, P.O. Bhojpur, P.S. Nagar Untari, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand. … Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O- Dhurwa, P.S- Jaganathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S- Garhwa, District Garhwa. 4. The District Education Officer, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S- Garhwa, District- Garhwa. 5. The Block Education Officer, Nagar Untari, P.O. & P.S. Nagar Untari, District Garhwa. … Respondents/Respondents. --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr Ashish Kumar Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Jayant Franklin Toppo, G.A.-V Mr Ajit Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-V Mr Krishna Murari, Advocate --------- 03/Dated: 23.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 06.01.2026 dismissing the appellant’s W.P. (S) No. 639 of 2021. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s services have been terminated in breach of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the allegation of unauthorised absence for long periods is incorrect, and that the true fact is that the appellant was not permitted to join the service. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that W.P. (S) No. 639 of 2021 was filed to direct the respondents to allow the appellant to join and continue in service as a Para Teacher. Since salaries were not paid Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18272-DB to the appellant from 2017, the appellant also prayed for the arrears of such salary, together with interest. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant had also raised a plea that there was no document from the competent authority to prove that the minutes of the meeting held on 26.07.2018 were ever confirmed. He submitted that since all these issues have not been properly appreciated, the learned single Judge’s impugned order warrants interference. 6. Mr Ajit Kumar, the learned A.C. to G.A.-V, defends the impugned order on the basis of the reasoning set out therein. He points out that this is a case in which the appellant engaged in defalcation and other serious misconduct. He points out that, in any event, after his repatriation in 2017, the appellant failed to report for duty, thereby being unauthorisedly absent. He points out that, accordingly, a decision was taken to end the services of the appellant, a Para Teacher, whose services were, in any event, on a contractual basis. 7. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 8. The appellant was appointed as a Para Teacher in February 2009. In 2012, he was deputed to another school. The records prima facie show that there were hardly any students in the said school, though the appellant obtained several unwanted benefits in the name of governing the said school, for which he was appointed Headmaster. 9. Even if the above issue is completely excluded from consideration, the records show that the appellant’s deputation ended in 2017, though the Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18272-DB appellant claims that it ended in 2018. The records show that after the conclusion of the deputation period, the appellant failed to rejoin duties at the original school from which he was sent on deputation. Instead, he continued to draw benefits from the school with hardly any students, allegedly by fudging records. 10. The appellant’s case that he always wanted to join but was not allowed to join cannot be believed, as the appellant instituted this petition only in 2021, i.e., about 3-4 years after he was allegedly not allowed to join. The appellant also prayed for salary, along with interest, for the period during which he admittedly did not work at all. 11. If a teacher was indeed prevented from joining duties, the least that was expected was that the teacher approach the Court within a reasonable time, not after four years. We get the impression that the appellant was not interested in joining the services but only in claiming salaries and other benefits, even for the period during which he had admittedly not worked. There is no explanation, except the contention that the appellant was representing to the authorities for filing the writ petition almost four years after the date on which the appellant was allegedly not allowed to rejoin the services after the conclusion of his deputation. 12. The appellant’s contention that there are no resolutions or no approval to the resolutions for ending his services is quite misconceived. Initially, on such grounds, we, by order dated 11th of May 2026, Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:18272-DB directed the respondents to file an affidavit placing on record the documents relating to such resolutions and their approval. 13. In the counter affidavit filed on the 16th of June 2026, such resolutions have been placed on record along with the communication of such resolutions to the various authorities. The resolutions very categorically note that the services of the appellant, a Para Teacher, are being ended inter alia on account of his long unauthorised absence consequent upon his failure to join duties after the conclusion of his deputation period. 14. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed only as a Para Teacher on a contractual basis. We do not accept the contention that the appellant has been treated unfairly or that there was any breach of natural justice involved in dealing with the appellant. 15. The learned single Judge has committed no error in denying relief to the petitioner. The discussion in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order is sufficient for dismissal of the appellant’s petition. 16. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and consequently dismiss this appeal without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 23, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 25.06.2026