2026:JHHC:2194 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.4501 of 2022 ------ Vikash Mehta @ Vikash Kumar, son of Sri Krishna Mehta, resident of Village Ashiqu Nagar, Kardanda, P.O. & P.S. Mohammadganj, District Palamau. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau. 4. District Education Officer-cum-District Program Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, Palamau, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, AC to SC (L & C)-I Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Rajvardhan, Advocate ------ 05/ 27.01.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “For grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or an order or direction for quashing letter no. 257 dated 5/3/2022 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 4 whereby and where under the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without following the principle of natural justice and for an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order or direction commanding upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his services with all consequential monetary and service benefits 2026:JHHC:2194 2 within a specified period and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the impugned letter issued by the respondents for cancellation of appointment of the petitioner is highly uncalled for as the petitioner is working since thirteen years and no proper enquiry has been conducted in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has also rebutted the letter of cancellation of service contract, but the same was not considered. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – JEPC submits that there is no procedural illegality in issuance of so called letter of cancellation, as the same has been given effect in accordance with the terms of Contract. 5. After going through the impugned letter of cancellation and letter of appointment of the petitioner, I find that no plausible explanation has been given which can justify the cancellation of service contract of the petitioner, who is working since thirteen years. Merely writing one line that the show cause reply is unsatisfactory, does not meet the ends of justice. Reasons should have been given in the impugned order justifying the conclusion, which is missing. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned letter as contained in Memo No.257 dated 2026:JHHC:2194 3 05.03.2022 is set aside. 7. However, the matter is remanded back to the Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council (JEPC), to pass a reasoned order considering the show cause reply filed by the petitioner, dealing with each of the imputation and the reply of the petitioner. 8. If it is found that the reply to the show cause notice is acceptable, then appropriate order should be passed reinstating the petitioner or placing the petitioner in any other post if the original post is not vacant. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 27th January, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 31.01.2026