2026:JHHC:2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.13 of 2022 ----- Bipul Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Kedar Prasad, resident of Station Road, Sulatanganj, P.O. & P.S. Sulatanganj, District Bhagalpur, State Bihar … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, State Jharkhand 3. The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand 4. The Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, State Jharkhand 5. The Principal, Jagannath Jain College, Jhumaritelaiya, P.O. & P.S. Jhumaritelaiya, District Koderma, State Jharkhand … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II For the V.B.U : Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate …...... 07 /27.01.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Principal of Jagannath Jain College, Jhumaritelaiya. The said college is a constituent college of Vinoba Bhave University. 3. By virtue of aforesaid order the college is not taking work from the petitioner. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor (Hindi) but by virtue of the aforesaid order the respondent-college has stopped taking work from him. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner was appointed only on contractual basis for the period of three years or until the regular appointment is made by the JPSC and his appointment was on hourly basis. 2026:JHHC:2007 2 6. As it was felt that there is no need of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed which cannot be said to be stigmatic. 7. After going through the writ petition, I find that the order dated 26.07.2019 is not stigmatic, it is simply said that there is no necessity to take work from the petitioner. Further, admittedly the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis and his payment was made for the hours of the classes which he had taken. Since the respondents does not feel it necessary to take any work from the petitioner and the order is not stigmatic, no right accrue to the petitioner to continue. 8. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9. This writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27.01.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 28.01.2026