Jharkhand High Court
Shobha Minz vs Dr. Raj Kumar on 21 March, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 203 of 2024
1. Shobha Minz, W/o of Late Ravikant Lakra, R/o C/o Martin Lakra,
Khora Toli, Don Bosco, 2nd Lane, Kokar, Ranchi
2. Nagendra Mahli, S/o Sri Vishu Mahli, R/o Lalgutua, Gulua, Nagri,
Ranchi
3. Vishwanath Mahli, S/o Late Munshi Mahli, R/o Village-Torar Sama
Toli, PO-Juria, PS-Senha, Lohardaga
4. Ajay Minz, S/o Sri Karma Minz, R/o Village-Bandhtoli, PO-
Hulhundu, PS-Hatia, Ranchi
5. Akash Francis Toppo, S/o Sri Egnesh Toppo, R/o Village-Sosai,
Block-Mandar, PO-Sosai Ashram, PS-Mandar, Ranchi
6. Dhananjay Paswan, S/o Sri Basudew Paswan, R/o Village-Fatma
Chak, Panchayat-Upari Kalan, PO-Darua, PS-Hussainabad,
Palamau
7. Bhishma Narayan Sharma, S/o Sri Birendra Sharma, R/o Village-
Lumaratbahini, Panchayat-Lumba Satbahini, PS-Untari, Palamau
8. Puja Nayak, D/o Sri Chunilal Nayak, R/o Sarhul Nagar, Tunki Toli,
Bariatu, Ranchi
9. Anita Topno, D/o Sri Amar Topno, R/o Village-Harmu, Panchayat-
Chinaro Purio, Block-Itki, Ranchi
10. Raju Xess, S/o Sri Budhwa Xess, R/o Dighia, Panchayat-Dighia,
Block-Bero, Ranchi
11. Sita Devi @ Sita Kumari, W/o Sri Jaynandan Mahto, R/o Village-
Berwari, PO-Soba, PS-Ginjo Thakurgaon, Ranchi
12. Ranjeet Khalkho, S/o Sri Dukhwa Oraon, R/o Tilta, PO-Kamre,
PS-Ratu, Ranchi
13. Praveen Kumar Rajak, S/o Sri Shyam Dev Baitha, R/o Tisibar
Khurd, Bishrampur, PO-Tisibar Kala, PS-Pandu, Palamau
14. Renu Singh, D/o Sri Shyam Bahadur, R/o Abadganj, Near Mission
School Road, Daltonganj, Palamau
15. Shushma Devi, W/o Sri Bijay Ram, R/o Lesliganj, Garhwa
16. Dilip Kumar, S/o Late Sita Ram Singh, R/o Village-Kushaha,
Kandi, Garhwa
17. Anil Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Nandlal Chandravanshi, R/o Village-
Sigsigi, Rehla, Palamau
18. Nilam Kumari, D/o Sri Narju Ram, R/o Village-Pindra, PO-
Okhargada, PS-Meral, Garhwa ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Dr. Raj Kumar, Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences,
Bariatu, Ranchi
2. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Secretary, Department of Health, Medical
Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Parties
1
Cont. Case (C) Nos. 203 & 493 of 2024
Contempt Case (Civil) No. 493 of 2024
1. Patyanjali, S/o Sureshwar Prasad, R/o West Modidih Colliery,
Near Shiv Mandir, Ganduba, Sijua, Dhanbad
2. Md. Tanweer Ahmad, S/o Late Md. Murtuza Ahmad, R/o Bariatu
Basti, Near Rahat Nursing Home, Ward No. 5, Bariatu, Ranchi
3. Ritesh Kumar, S/o Sri Jagdish Ram, R/o Ormanjhi, Ranchi
4. Kuldip Mahto, S/o Sri Jitu Lal Mahto, R/o Kandra, Tola-Partand,
Chas, Pindrajora, Bokaro
5. Rajaram Ahir @ Raja Ram Ahir, S/o Sri Munshi Ahir, R/o Village-
Situmdih, Sonahatu, Ranchi, At Present R/o Q. No. 22, Doctor's
Colony, Bariatu, Ranchi
6. Chandan Kumar, S/o Sri Dinesh Prajapati, R/o Ward No. 8,
Shivpuri Mohalla, Latehar
7. Shashank Kumar, S/o Sri Shiv Shankar Bhokta, R/o Village-
Bagidih, Rajdhanwar, Giridih
8. Bishnu Kant Sah, S/o Sri Radhe Shyam Sah, R/o 11/69, New
Colony, Jagjiwan Nagar, Seraidhela, Dhanbad, At Present: R/o
Bhandarjori, Dangal Para, Kannu Para, Dumka
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Prof. (Dr.) Raj Kumar, Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical
Sciences, Bariatu, Ranchi
2. The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. D.K. Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Raju Koiri, Advocate
[In Cont. Case (C) No. 203/2024]
Mr. H.K. Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
[In Cont. Case (C) No. 493/2024]
For the Opposite Party No. 1 : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak, Adv.
[In Cont. Case (C) No. 203/2024]
Mr. Sharon Toppo, AC to
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
[In Cont. Case (C) No. 493/2024]
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar,
AC to SC (L&C)-III
-----
21/21.03.2025 The present contempt petitions have been filed for
initiating a contempt proceeding against the contemnors/opposite
parties alleging wilful disobedience of orders dated 11.10.2023 and
17.10.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 939 of 2021 and W.P.(S) No. 256
Cont. Case (C) Nos. 203 & 493 of 2024
of 2021 respectively.
2. The contempt cases were earlier taken up on
07.03.2025 and on the said date, following order was passed:
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite
party no.1 in Contempt Case No.203 of 2024 submits that
the appointment letters of two petitioners i.e.
Vishwanath Mahli and Anita Toppo have already been
issued. So far as the petitioners Ajay Minz, Dhananjay
Paswan, Bhishma Narayan Sharma, Raju Xess, Ranjeet
Khalkho, Praveen Kr. Rajak, Renu Singh and Sushma Devi
are concerned, the Committee has recommended their
names for appointment. So far as the petitioners Pooja
Nayak, Shobha Minz, Nagendra Mahli, Akash Franciss
Toppo, Sita Devi, Dilip Kumar and Anil Kumar Singh are
concerned, they have not been found eligible for
appointment. The said fact would be evident from
Annexure-B to the show cause affidavit dated 6 th March,
2025 filed on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Learned
counsel, however, submits at Bar that so far as the
petitioner Nilam Kumari is concerned, her candidature
has also been rejected but due to inadvertence, her name
could not be mentioned in Annexure-B to the said show
cause affidavit.
2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 appearing
in Contempt Case No.493 of 2024 submits that only one
petitioner i.e. Md. Tanveer Ahmad (wrongly mentioned as
Md. Tanveer Alam in Annexure-B/2 of the show cause
affidavit dated 6th March, 2025 filed on behalf of the
opposite party no.1) has been recommended for
appointment. Other petitioners have not been found
eligible for appointment. Hence, their names have not
been recommended.
3. Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the opposite party no.1 in Contempt Case
No.203 of 2024, assures the Court that the appointment
letters with respect to the petitioners, whose names have
been recommended, will be issued positively by 19th
March, 2025.
4. Despite the fact that the order dated 17th January,
2025 passed in the present contempt cases has not been
fully complied by the opposite party no.1, he is not
physically present before this Court. However, keeping in
view the aforesaid assurance given on behalf of the
opposite party no.1, this Court is not passing any coercive
order against the said opposite party today. The opposite
party no.1 is directed to file compliance affidavit by 20th
Cont. Case (C) Nos. 203 & 493 of 2024
March, 2025 annexing the copies of the appointment
letters of the concerned petitioners failing which he shall
remain physically present before this Court on the next
date fixed.
5. Put up these cases under the same heading on 21 st
March, 2025.
3. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 07.03.2025,
Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned SC-III appearing on behalf of the
opposite party no. 1 in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 203 of 2024
refers to paragraph no. 8 of the show cause affidavit dated
19.03.2025 filed on behalf of the said opposite party, which reads
as under:
8. That, it is humbly submitted that total 18 petitioners
have preferred the present contempt application and out
of 18 petitioners, 10 petitioners were issued appointment
letters and the remaining 8 were found not eligible has
not possessing experience of corresponding work.
Tabular Statement of the Petitioners
Post : Ward Attendant
Sl. No. Name Status Remarks
1. Vishwanath Appointment Letter Letter No.
Mahli issued 1200 dated
14.10.2024
2. Anita Appointment Letter Letter No.
Topno issued 1209 dated
14.10.2024
3. Ajay Minz Appointment Letter Letter No.
issued 398 dated
11.03.2025
4. Dhananjay Appointment Letter Letter No.
Paswan issued 357 dated
11.03.2025
5. Bhishma Appointment Letter Letter No.
Narayan issued 376 dated
Sharma 11.03.2025
6. Raju Xess Appointment Letter Letter No.
issued 356 dated
11.03.2025
7. Ranjeet Appointment Letter Letter No.
Khalkho issued 365 dated
11.03.2025
8. Praveen Appointment Letter Letter No.
Kr Rajak issued 384 dated
11.03.2025
9. Renu Appointment Letter Letter No.
Singh issued 352 dated
11.03.2025
10. Sushma Appointment Letter Letter No.
Devi issued 355 dated
11.03.2025
11. Puja Not Eligible No experience
Nayak of
corresponding
work
12. Shobha Not Eligible No experience
Cont. Case (C) Nos. 203 & 493 of 2024
Minz of
corresponding
work
13. Nagendra Not Eligible No experience
Mahli of
corresponding
work
14. Akash Not Eligible No experience
Francis of
Toppo corresponding
work
15. Sita Devi Not Eligible No experience
of
corresponding
work
16. Dilip Not Eligible No experience
Kumar of
corresponding
work
17. Anil Not Eligible No experience
Kumar of
Singh corresponding
work
18. Nilam Not Eligible No experience
Kumari of
corresponding
work
4. It is submitted that the appointment letters have now
been issued in favour of the petitioners namely, Vishwanath Mahli,
Anita Topno, Ajay Minz, Dhananjay Paswan, Bhishma Narayan
Sharma, Raju Xess, Ranjeet Khalkho, Praveen Kr Rajak, Renu Singh
and Sushma Devi.
5. Mr. Sharon Toppo, AC to Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 1 in
Cont. Case (C) No. 493 of 2024, refers to paragraph no. 5 of the
show cause affidavit dated 20.03.2025, which reads as under:
"5. That in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court
passed in W.P.(S) No. 256 of 2021 as well as the order of
the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court passed in
paragraph no. 60 of LPA No. 565 of 2022, the opposite
party-RIMS has fully complied and has issued the
appointment letter to the only selected candidate Md.
Tanweer Ahmad vide letter no. 409 dated 11.03.2025.
Remaining seven petitioners have not been found
eligible."
6. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 1 appearing in respective contempt petitions that the
orders dated 11.10.2023 and 17.10.2023 passed in the aforesaid
Cont. Case (C) Nos. 203 & 493 of 2024
writ petitions have been complied in its true letter and spirit.
7. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioners of
Cont. Case (C) No. 203 of 2024, while referring to the list of
rejected candidates against Advertisement No. 955(C) dated
08.03.2019 (annexed as Annexure-A series to the show cause
affidavit dated 19.03.2025), submits that though the candidature of
the petitioner nos. 5, 11, 16, 17 and 18 have been rejected,
however, their names have not been shown in the said list of
rejected candidates.
8. Considering the said submission, the opposite party no.
1 is directed to furnish the reason for rejecting the candidature of
the said petitioners within two weeks.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
keeping in view the show cause affidavits dated 19.03.2025 and
20.03.2025 filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 in respective
contempt petitions, I see no reason to further proceed in the
contempt petitions. The contempt proceedings as against the
opposite parties are hereby dropped.
10. The contempt petitions are accordingly disposed of.
11. The petitioners whose candidature have been rejected
in pursuance of Advertisement No. 955(C) dated 08.03.2019 are at
liberty to take appropriate recourse against the same as permissible
under law.
12. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the
petitioners of respective contempt petitions that so far as the
direction as contained in paragraph no. 62(VI) of the judgment
Cont. Case (C) Nos. 203 & 493 of 2024
dated 11.08.2023 passed in L.P.A No. 565 of 2022, which has been
quoted in paragraph no. 2 of the orders dated 11.10.2023 and
17.10.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 939 of 2021 and W.P.(S) No. 256
of 2021 respectively is concerned, no show cause affidavit(s) has
been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 stating as to what
action has been taken for identifying the erring officers/staff who
were/are involved in the faulty process of selection as well as no
show cause affidavit(s) has been filed on behalf of the Additional
Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and
Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand stating about the
monitoring of the action taken against the said erring officers/staff.
13. So far as the said aspect is concerned, the petitioners
are at liberty to prefer fresh contempt petition(s), if the opposite
party no. 1 and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of
Jharkhand do not take the required steps within a reasonable
period.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
Cont. Case (C) Nos. 203 & 493 of 2024
