[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Rita Kumari on 17 February, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:4620-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.352 of 2025
---------
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal
Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department,
Government of Jharkhand, P.O + P.S. Dhurwa,
Dist. Ranchi.
2. The Director Primary, Education, Department of
School Education & Literacy, Government of
Jharkhand, P.O + P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O + P.S. +
Dist. Chatra.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra,
P.O + P.S. + Dist. Chatra. ..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Rita Kumari, D/o Prem Lal Barhai, R/o Vill Shivadih,
P.O Sandh, P.S. Barkagaon, Dist. Hazaribagh,
Jharkhand ..... Respondent(s)
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II
For the Respondent : Mr. Rama Kant Tiwari, Adv.
---------
CAV ON 05.02.2026 Pronounced on 17/02/2026
Per Deepak Roshan, J.
1. The instant interlocutory application being I.A.
No.6132/2025 has been preferred by the appellants for
condonation of delay of 252 days.
2. Looking to the averments made in the instant
application, we are of the view that sufficient cause has
been shown. Accordingly, we condone the delay and
dispose of the I.A. No.6132 of 2025.
3. With consent of the parties the main appeal is
taken up for hearing.
4. This intra court appeal is directed against the
judgment dated 12.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Writ Court
in W.P.(S) No.1860 of 2021, whereby the 3rd respondent
2026:JHHC:4620-DB
was directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner
for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher
(Class-I-V) under para category, subject-Khortha,
pursuant to the advertisement No.7/2015 within a period
of 8 weeks from the date of Writ's Court order.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously
argued that the learned Single Judge has not considered
the vital aspect of the matter that since the petitioner has
obtained higher degree as a regular student while
working as Para Teacher, accordingly, the same is
misconduct and her candidature was rightly not
considered in spite of the fact that she had obtained
higher marks than the last selected candidates.
Accordingly, he submits that the order of the Writ Court
is fit to be quashed and set aside.
6. However, upon query by this Court, he was unable
to demonstrate whether any notification or resolution
exists to the effect that regular candidates are barred
from pursuing higher qualifications while serving as Para
Teachers.
7. Per contra, it has been contended by the
respondent-writ petitioner that there is no term and
condition mentioned in the advertisement, which
stipulates that a candidate cannot enhance her
educational qualification while working as a Para
Teacher; nor is there any such rule or bar suggesting that
if a candidate has enhanced his/her educational
qualification as a Para Teacher, her candidature will be
rejected.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, and
after going through the documents available on record, it
2026:JHHC:4620-DB
transpires that the petitioner had preferred a writ petition
with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to
consider her case for appointment to the post of Inter
Trained Teacher (Assistant Teacher, Class I-V) under the
Para Teacher category for the District of Chatra, subject-
Khortha, pursuant to advertisement no. 07/2015
(amended), since she has obtained higher marks than the
last selected candidate.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that she has obtained
a total of 53.59 marks, whereas the cut-off marks were
only 52.41 in the MBC, female category. According to the
petitioner, she had completed her Intermediate course
after taking due permission from the superior authorities,
i.e., the Block Education Extension Officer, which is
evident from the letter dated 20.03.2005, as contained in
Annexure-R/1 of the rejoinder to the writ petition. The
petitioner had never absented herself from her work as a
Para Teacher, and she had worked diligently without any
complaint from any corner, which is evident from the
certificate dated 18.06.2018 (Annexure-3) of the writ
petition.
10. Further case of the petitioner is that, in spite of
having secured more marks than the last selected
candidate, she was not called for counselling, as she was
informed that she had completed her Intermediate Degree
not through distance learning, and hence her
candidature could not be considered.
11. Thus, we see that, admittedly, the respondent-writ
petitioner had obtained much higher marks than the last
selected candidate, and she was also found fit after the
selection process, which was pursuant to the
2026:JHHC:4620-DB
advertisement no. 7 of 2015 (amended).
12. From the record, it further transpires that the writ
petitioner-respondent was also granted permission by the
Block Education Extension Officer to enhance her
educational qualification, and only thereafter she had
enhanced her qualification.
13. As a matter of fact, the learned writ court has
taken into consideration Annexure-R/1 of the rejoinder to
the writ petition, as well as the certificate issued vide
order dated 20.03.2005, granting such permission.
14. It further transpires, from the perusal of the
advertisement, that there is no such clause indicating
any bar upon candidates with regard to enhancing their
degree while working as Para Teachers.
As a matter of fact, when we made a query to the
counsel for the appellant as to whether there exists any
rule prohibiting a candidate from enhancing her degree or
educational qualification while serving as a Para Teacher,
the learned counsel for the appellant could not answer
the query, and virtually admitted that there is no such
rule.
15. We may also point out that there is no allegation as
against the writ petitioner-respondent that she has used
any unfair means in enhancing her degree.
16. As aforesaid, on the one hand, there is no clause in
the advertisement with regard to barring those
candidates who had enhanced their qualification while
working as Para Teachers; nor is there any rule,
notification, or circular of the State Government to that
effect.
17. As a matter of fact, the issue of enhancement of
2026:JHHC:4620-DB
degree has been deliberated upon by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Pathak v. State of
U.P, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 521 wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court has dealt with this issue in paragraphs 7 of
its judgment. For brevity para 7 is extracted herein
below:-
"7. We are of the opinion that both the submissions of the learned
Senior Counsel are valid in law and have to prevail. The High
Court has been influenced by the argument of the respondents
that simultaneous appearance in two examinations by the
appellant in the same year was "contrary to the Regulations".
However, no such Regulation has been mentioned either by the
learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. Curiously, no such
Regulation has been pointed out even by the respondents. On our
specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents to this
effect, he expressed his inability to show any such Regulation or
any other rule or provision contained in the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 or Supplementary Regulations of 1976
framed under the aforesaid Act or in any other governing
Regulations. Therefore, the entire foundation of the impugned
judgment of the High Court is erroneous.
18. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, we are
of the opinion that the learned Writ Court has not
committed any error in passing the impugned order, so as
to interfere with the same.
19. Consequently, the Appellant no.3 is directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the
post of Assistant Teacher (Class I-V), under para category,
subject-Khortha, pursuant to advertisement No. 7 of 15,
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
20. As a result, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands closed; however, there shall be
no order as to cost.
[[
(M. S. Sonak, CJ)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
17/2/2026
Uploaded on
18./02/2026
Fahim/
AFR/NAFR
