[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Muzaffar Ansari vs The Jharkhand Academic Council on 29 January, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:2362
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.166 of 2024
------
1. Muzaffar Ansari, son of Khalil Ansari, resident of Village
Jatakothi, P.O. Sarbhanga, P.S. Mahgama, District-Godda.
2. Md. Irshad Alam Ansari, son of Md. Murshid Ali Ansari,
resident of Village Jatakothi, P.O. Sarbhanga, P.S. Mahgama,
District Godda.
3. Abdus Sattar, son of Abdul Wahab, resident of Village
Basdiha, P.O. Lohandiya, P.S. Godda, District Godda.
4. Md. Saddam Hussain, son of Md. Salimuddin Ansari, resident
of Village Lalmatia, P.O. & P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda.
5. Md. Hafazudin Ansari, son of Md. Kudrat Ansari, resident of
Village Bhorai, P.O. Lohandiya, P.S. Lalmatiya, District Godda.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Jharkhand Academic Council, through the Secretary, P.O.
& P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.
2. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, School
Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand,
having its office at MDI Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District Godda.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahagama, P.O., P.S. & District
Godda.
5. The District Education Officer, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District
Godda.
6. The Secretary, Managing Committee, Madarsa Darul Hoda,
Kendua, Lalmatia, P.O. & P.S. Lalmatia, District Godda.
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate
Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate
Md. Shahabuddin, Advocate
------
06/ 29.01.2026
By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed
for the following reliefs:-
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the decision as
contained in Memo No. JAC/Mada/232-
2026:JHHC:2362
3871/23 dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure-8)
issued under the signature of the
Respondent No.1; whereby the approval
granted to the appointment of the
petitioners vide letter no. JAC/Mada/232-
2118/23 dated 01.07.2023 has been
cancelled on the strength of the
recommendation made by the Deputy
Commissioner, Godda as contained in
letter no. 929 dated 3.08.2023.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s),
order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of
the letter no. 929 dated 3.8.2023
(Annexure-7), whereby and whereunder
on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry in
relation to appointment of petitioners on
the posts of Alim, Moulvi, Hafiz, Inter
Trained and Matric Trained, their
appointment has been recommended for
cancellation on ground of lack of fairness
in the selection process.
(iii) The petitioner further prays for issuance
of appropriate writ, order or direction for
quashing of the enquiry report dated
17.7.2023 (Annexure-6) whereby and
whereunder on the basis of vague and
frivolous allegation it has been prima facie
opined that the allegation in relation to
appointment of the petitioners by way of
favour is true and hence, they have been
recommended for termination.
(iv) The petitioners upon quashing of the
impugned orders further pray for issuance
of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or
direction(s) to pay monthly salary to the
petitioners in lieu of their valid and lawful
appointment as against the sanctioned
and vacant posts, which has been duly
2026:JHHC:2362
approved vide letter of JAC contained in
memo no. 2118/23 dated 1.7.2023."
2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners,
learned counsel representing the respondents - State &
Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC), and learned counsel
representing the interveners.
3. Be it noted that the intervener is not claiming any
independent right. He is also not claiming for any appointment.
Since, on his complaint, the impugned order of removal was
passed, he has addressed this Court.
4. After hearing the parties at length, I find that after
publication of an Advertisement being No.04/Mad/23 dated
20.04.2023, these petitioners were selected to the post of "Alim,
Moulvi, Hafiz" in "Madarsa Darul Hoda, Kendua, Lalmatia,
Godda". The said Madarsa is a Non-Government Aided Madarsa.
4.1. After the petitioners were selected, the intervener
complained about the selection process. Upon his complaint, a
Committee was formed for enquiring into the matter and based
on the enquiry report of the Committee, the Deputy
Commissioner of the District recommended withdrawal of
approval of appointment of the petitioners.
4.2. From the records, I find that prior to the appointment,
a similar complaint was lodged. The said complaint was enquired
into by a Three Member Committee consisting of Regional
Education Officer, Mahagama, Regional Education Officer, Godda
and Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Godda.
2026:JHHC:2362
4.3. On conclusion, of the aforesaid enquiry, an enquiry
report was submitted. In the said report, it was opined that
against the six sanctioned posts in Madarsa, written examination
and interview were conducted. It was also opined that the
guidelines and directions of Jharkhand Academic Council were
followed and the President and the Secretary of the School
Committee did not participate in the selection process, which
suggest that the process was transparent. The report does not
suggest any irregularity or illegality nor any malice was shown
against any person in the appointment process.
4.4. After the aforesaid report was forwarded to the
Authorities, the JAC approved the appointment of these
petitioners as per law. The said Approval is at page No.52
(Annexure-5) of the writ petition. The said Approval dated
01.07.2023 clearly suggests that since the petitioners were
selected after following the due process, their appointment is
being approved.
4.5. Once the appointment has been approved, the
intervener made a complaint. As per the complaint, the
allegations are as follows:-
"(i) the appointment process is not transparent
and there was discrimination.
(ii) the applications of two candidates were not
sent through post, rather they were
submitted directly to the School Authorities,
which were accepted.
(iii) the results were not affixed in the Notice
Board and no one was informed.
(iv) there was discrimination in evaluating the
2026:JHHC:2362
answer papers
(v) there was exchange of money and also the
relatives of persons have been appointed."
4.6. Based on the aforesaid allegation, the Deputy
Commissioner formed a Three Member Committee. The
Committee consisted of Circle Officer, Boarijor, District Education
Officer, Godda and Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama.
5. The aforesaid Committee submitted an enquiry report
(Annexure-6 to the writ petition), which suggests that the Enquiry
Committee found that in the entire selection process, 44
candidates applied for appointment, out of which candidature of
05 candidates was rejected on the ground that they did not meet
the minimum qualification. Those rejected candidates did not
object their disqualification also.
5.1. The Committee further found that the allegation about
the two candidates of not sending their applications through post
is not correct as the Committee found that those two candidates
had also sent their applications through post. The Committee
found that no satisfactory reply was given by the Madarsa in
respect of publication of the information about the appointment.
5.2. Further, the Head Moulvi and the Secretary could not
give satisfactory reply in respect of the Rules, thus the Committee
concluded that there may be some element of doubt.
5.3. So far as correction of papers is concerned, there is
nothing in the report to suggest that there was any malpractice.
The marks which were allotted, after tallying were found to be
2026:JHHC:2362
correct.
5.4. In the report, the Committee found that there is no
substance in the allegation that the money was exchanged in the
entire appointment process. After holding this, the Committee
arrived at a conclusion that there is doubt in the selection process
which lacks transparency and independence.
6. After going through the aforesaid enquiry report, I
could not find any substantive material based on which the
aforesaid conclusions have been arrived at by the aforesaid
officers. Not only the allegations were vague without any specific
instances, similar is the material in the enquiry report. Without
any concrete material, based on surmises and conjectures, the
Authority had arrived at a conclusion that the appointment
process lacks transparency. When a Committee or an Authority
arrives at a conclusion that a process is not transparent or it is
biased, there must be some concrete evidence and instances
before the Committee. The Committee cannot arrive at such
conclusion merely on presumption or assumption. There is no
concrete evidence as such to arrive at the said conclusion.
7. Further, admittedly prior to approval of the
appointment of this petitioner by JAC, similar nature of complaint
was made but after a proper enquiry, all the allegations were
negated, thus the appointment was approved.
8. Further, once the appointment of the petitioners was
approved, the right had accrued in their favour. No notice to show
cause was ever issued before issuing the impugned order.
2026:JHHC:2362
9. Considering what has been held above, I find that
there is no substantive material to come to a finding that the
entire appointment process was against the law or was not
transparent and is malicious.
10. Thus, I find merit in this writ petition. The impugned
orders as contained in Letter No.232-3871/23 dated 28.12.2023
(Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and Letter No.929 dated
03.08.2023 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), are hereby
quashed and set aside.
10.1. The respondents are directed to appoint the
petitioners by issuing an appropriate order.
10.2. The Letter of Approval bearing Memo No.JAC/Madarsa
No.232-2118/23 dated 01.07.2023 issued by the Jharkhand
Academic Council (JAC) (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), is
hereby revived.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No
order as to costs.
12. Pending interlocutory application being I.A. No.6621
of 2024 and other pending interlocutory application, if any, stands
disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
29th January, 2026
Prashant. Cp-2
Uploaded on 04.02.2026
