2026:JHHC:9328 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2044 of 2026 ------ 1. Md Sarif Alam @Md Sarif Ansari, aged about 47 years old, Son of Siddik Ansari, 2. Obaidullah, aged about 26 years old, son of Md Ali, 3. Abul Quasim, aged about 23 years old, son of Abdus Shakoor, All resident of Taledih, Gadra, Bhagaiya Post Office - Mandro, Police Station- Mirza Chowki, District - Sahebganj. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Namkum, Post Office and Police Station-Namkum, District-Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Namkum, Post Office and Police Station-Namkum, District-Ranchi. 4. The District Education Officer, Sahebganj, Post Office and Police Station-Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj. 5. The Deputy Collector, Sahebganj, Post Office and Police Station- Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj. 6. Md Salimuddin, son of Md Saeed Ahmad, Present Head Molvi, Madarsa Taeedul Islam, resident of Dokadih, Post office- Mandro Police Station- Mirza Chowki, District- Sahebganj. 813208. 7. Abdul Rauf, son of Md Saeed Ahmad, Present President, Management Committee, Madarsa Taeedul Islam, resident of Dokadih, Post office- Mandro Police Station- Mirza Chowki, District- Sahebganj. 813208. 8. Tahiruddin, son of Abdul Gaffur, Present Secretary, Management Committee, Madarsa Taeedul Islam, resident of Dokadih, Post Office- Mandro Police Station- Mirza Chowki, District- Sahebganj. 813208. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate Mrs. Malsi Pathak, Advocate ------ 02/ 02nd April, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2025 as contained in JAC/MASDARSA/802-685/25 (Annexure- 10). By the aforesaid letter, the Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC) has only accepted the recommendation made by the Managing Committee whereby the Donor Member and Academic member have been selected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits and all the persons are member of the same family. Thus, he submits that the 2026:JHHC:9328 2 Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC) should not have accepted their recommendation. 4. From the petition, I find that the petitioners’ prayer is that they should be nominated as a Donor member. Further, they claim that the selection process of the Donor member and the Academic member was not transparent. 5. From the entire petition and the relief which the petitioners are claiming, I find that there is an internal dispute between the members, which cannot be decided in this writ petition. Since, JAC had received a recommendation from the managing committee, they have merely accepted the same. 6. If the petitioners have got any grievance and sufficient materials in support of their grievance, they should have approached the JAC rather than to approach this Court directly. 7. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they may approach the Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC). 8. If any such representation is filed or is pending, the JAC will consider the same as per his own merits and in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 02.04.2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 07.04.2026