2026:JHHC:25308 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 861 of 2024 ---------- Manoj Tirkey, (Age 42 years), S/o. Xavier Tirkey, R/o. Village Malam Nawa Toli, P.O.+P.S. Chainpur, Dist. Gumla (Jharkhand). ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnath, Dist. Ranchi. 4. The District Education Officer, Gumla, P.O.+P.S.+Dist. Gumla. ………. Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Sunita Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP-III Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III ---------- 11/ 21.08.2026 The instant application has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs: a. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/, direction(s) for Quashing of Memo No. 247 dated 29/1/2024(Annexure-4) issued by the respondent no. 3, whereby and where under approval of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher(Sanskrit) kept in abeyance/not considered along with two others by purely violating article 14 &16 of the Constitution of India as well as by contradicting their own documents b. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/, direction(s) to the Respondents for approval the name of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher(Sanskrit) since 24/1/2024 the date from which, similarly situated persons(Teachers) have been approved by the respondents by issuing Memo No. 248 dated 29/1/2024. c. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/, direction(s) to the Respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner from the date of his joining since 2/5/2023. d. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/, direction(s) to the Respondents stay the memo no. 247 dated 29/1/2024 till the final outcome of the instant writ petition. 2. Briefly stated as per the pleadings, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the subject of Sanskrit against sanctioned and vacant post and he gave his joining on 02.05.2023. Since then, petitioner is 2026:JHHC:25308 2 working continuously on the said post in Government Aided Minority School, namely, “St. Piyus Janta Uchch Vidyalaya, Bhikhampur, Jari, Gumla”. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had already given final examination of MA (Sanskrit) in the month of April, 2022 and final result was published on 29.04.2022 i.e. much prior to his joining the post of Assistant Teacher. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the Advertisement for appointment as Assistant Teacher for the subject of Sanskrit, there was no mention of submission of the Master’s Degree (M.A.) certificate. However, later on as per Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teacher and Non- Teaching Staff Appointment and Service Conditions Rules, 2015 (Annexure- A to the counter-affidavit dated 01.07.2024), it was held that any person who was having the degree of Master will get the benefit of approval. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since at the time of advertisement there was no mention of submission of Master’s Degree Certificate in the concerned subject; accordingly, the petitioner did not submit his Master’s Degree certificate but the fact remains that he was holding the Master’s Degree at that time. Ld. Counsel further submits that after filing of supplementary counter-affidavit, it is clear that the persons who were having Master’s Degree have been granted approval of service; however, the petitioner only due to that reason, has not yet been granted approval for his appointment till date. 6. She further draws attention of this Court towards para-6(i) of the supplementary counter-affidavit dated 17.01.2026 wherein it has been stated that few candidates were under prescribed minimum qualification at the time of their appointment; as such, it has been decided that approval of their appointment shall be maintained as it is. By pointing-out that averment, learned counsel submits that the case of petitioner and those persons are same and similar in view of the fact that on the date of appointment, the petitioner was also having Master’s degree. Therefore, the 2026:JHHC:25308 3 instant application may be allowed by directing the concerned respondents to look into the matter that the petitioner was also having Master’s degree at the time of appointment with other co-employees which is mentioned at para-6(i). 7. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits that in the advertisement there was no mention of having minimum degree of M.A. However, subsequently, it was held that since in the concerned Rules, the Master’s degree was condition precedent; as such, the Department is verifying the records of all those candidates who were having Master’s degree at the time of appointment for giving the same benefit. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the Rules (Annexure-A to the Counter-Affidavit), it is crystal clear that any candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher should have Master’s Degree at the time of appointment. However, it is also an admitted position that no such condition was stipulated in the advertisement and the contention of the petitioner is that he was having Master’s degree at the time of appointment but since the same was not condition precedent at the time of submitting the appointment, therefore, he has not submitted the same. 9. In this factual scenario, interest of justice would be sufficed by directing the Petitioner to approach Respondent No. 4, who shall look into the matter and after verification of record, come to conclusion as to whether the Petitioner was having the Master’ degree at the time of appointment or not. 10. Admittedly, when there was no stipulation in the advertisement, the Petitioner was correct in not submitting the same but when similarly situated persons who were having Master’s degree at the time of appointment are getting the benefit, then this Court feels that there is no reason as to why the Petitioner shall not get the similar benefit. 11. Accordingly, looking to the overall facts and circumstances and after verification of documents, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 2026:JHHC:25308 4 247 dated 29/1/2024(Annexure-4), so far as it relates to the present petitioner, is quashed and the concerned Respondents is directed to pass appropriate order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and consequential benefits shall also be extended within a further period of 4 weeks. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 21st August, 2026 kunal/- Uploaded 02.09.2026