The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... vs Bhudeo Chandra Dey
2025 Latest Caselaw 5720 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... vs Bhudeo Chandra Dey on 11 September, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                              2025:JHHC:27720-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             L.P.A. No. 35 of 2025
1.     The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of
School Education and Literacy, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi.
2.     The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3.     The District Education Officer, Dumka, P.O. & P.S. Dumka, District
Dumka.
                                       ...   ...     ...      Appellants
                         Versus
1.     Bhudeo Chandra Dey, son of Late Hari Mohan Dey, resident of
Village Bhurkunda, P.O. Bhurkunda, P.S. Dumka (M), District- Dumka.
2.     Goliath Murmu, son of Late Lal Murmu, resident of Village
Baskanali, P.O. Teliachak, P.S. Dumka (M), District Dumka.
3.     Radhey Shyam Sah, son of Late Ganga Prasad Sah, resident of
Mohalla-Sonuwa Dangal, P.O. Shivpahar, P.S. Dumka (T), District-
Dumka.
4.     Elizabeth Murmu, wife of Late Anthony Marandi, resident of Village
Guhuajori, P.O. Guhuajori, P.S. Dumka (M), District- Dumka.
5.     The Secretary/Headmaster, St. Joseph's High School, Guhiyajori,
Dumka, P.O. & P.S Dumka (M), District Dumka.
                                      ...     ...      ... Respondents
                           ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

---------

For the Appellants: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I

---------

02/Dated: 11.09.2025

1. For the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application, which is duly

supported by an affidavit of the officer of the appellants, we find sufficient

cause to condone the delay of 540 days that has crept up in filing the

Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. This Interlocutory

Application stands disposed of.

-1 of 2- 2025:JHHC:27720-DB

3. Heard.

4. We really wonder why the State has filed the instant appeal given

the fact that it is for the State itself to pass the consideration order in

terms of the judgment. The relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

"Accordingly, I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to verify the factual aspects/issues involved in the present writ petition vis. a vis. factual aspects/issues involved in in W.P.(S). No. 1386 of 2009 and other analogous cases, and if the facts/issues involved in the present writ petition is found to be similar to the aforementioned writ petition, the same benefits may be extended to the present petitioners also, in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

Let it be made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case.

With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of."

5. Since it is for the appellants-State to itself take a decision, the

appeal sans merits and is dismissed accordingly. Pending Interlocutory

Application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

N.A.F.R. APK/VK.

-2 of 2-