[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Congress Mohli vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 March, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:7246-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No.163 of 2025
-----
1. Congress Mohli, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Manbharan Mohli,
Resident of Khatisari, P.O. Satpahari, P.S.- Dumka, District- Dumka,
Jharkhand,
2. Saorj Kumar, aged about 53 years, son of Late Awadh Bihari Mandal,
Resident of Castairs Town, P.O.-B. Deoghar, P.S.-Deoghar, District-
Deoghar, Jharkhand,
3. Sushil Kumar Soren, aged about 53 years, Son of Manishal M. Soren,
Resident of - Kushbedia, P.O- Siktia, P.S.- Jama, District- Dumka,
Jharkhand,
4. Sushil Marandi, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Khara Marandi,
Resident of Fuljhari, P.O.-Siktia, P.S.-Jama District- Dumka, Jharkhand,
5. Karnika Kumari, aged about 61 years, Wife of Parmanand Yadav,
Resident of Parpahara, P.O.- Roundhiya, P.S.-Saraiyahat, District-Dumka,
Jharkhand,
6. Raj Kumari, aged about 56 years, Daughter of Sikander Prasad Sah,
Resident of Hansdiha, P.O. & P.S.-Hansdiha, District-Dumka, Jharkhand.
7. Sunaiyana Devi, aged about 61 years, Daughter of Nageshwar Prasad
Yadav, Resident of Saraiyahat, P.O. & P.S.- Saraiyahat, District- Dumka,
Jharkhand,
8. Santosh Kumar Hembrom, aged about 53 years, Son of Matal Hembrom,
Resident of Rajapathar, P.O.-Bouria, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Dumka,
Jharkhand,
9. Pradeep Kumar Mandal, aged about 56 years, Son of Matal Hembrom,
Resident of Jarmundi, P.O. & P.S.- Jarmundi, District- Dumka, Jharkhand,
10. Abner Murmu, aged about 54 years, Son of Bhado Murmu, Resident of
Sagbehri, P.O.- Ghasipur, P.S.-Dumka Mufassil, District-Dumka,
Jharkhand
... ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand,
2. Shri Lalbiaktluanga Khiangte, Fathers' name not known to the petitioners,
the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, At- Project Building, P.O.
& P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand,
3. Shri Uma Shankar Singh, Fathers' name not known to the petitioners, The
Secretary, Human Resource Development Department ( Now renamed as
School Education and Literacy Department), Government of Jharkhand,
At- Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand,
4. Shri Praveen Kumar Toppo, Fathers' name not known to the petitioners,
The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, At- Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand,
5. Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, Fathers' name not known to the petitioners,
The Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, At- Project
Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand,
6. Shri Anjaneyulu Dodde, Fathers' Name not known to the petitioner, The
Deputy Commissioner-Secretary, District Education Establishment
Committee, At- Samaharnayal Bhwan, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka, District-
Dumka, Jharkhand,
2026:JHHC:7246-DB
7. Smt. Snehlata Toppono, Fathers' name not known to the petitioners, The
Deputy Director, Regional Education North Chotanagapur Division
(Santhal Pargana Division), P.O. & P.S.- Dumka, District- Dumka,
Jharkhand,
8. Shri Ashish Kumar Hembrom, Fathers' name not known to the
petitioners, The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub Divisional
Education Officer, Jila Parishad Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dumka, Jharkhand
... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V
----------
th
Order No.10 /Dated 16 March, 2026
1. This Contempt Case has been filed for non- compliance of the
order dated 07.06.2022 passed in W. P (S) No. 5258 of 2017 on behalf
of the opposite parties.
2. A show cause has been filed inter alia stating that save and except
the petitioner no. 1 in the present contempt case, other persons have
been granted promotion. The reason for non-consideration to grant
promotion to the petitioner no.1 as has been shown in the said show
cause is that while discharging the duties, he has got higher qualification
without any permission, which has been taken as a ground for
disqualifying him for grant of promotion.
3. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has submitted by filing rejoinder to the show cause that there
is no requirement to get any permission from the employer for taking
Higher Education.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. This Court is of the view that since the order dated 07.06.2022
has substantially been complied with, leaving, with specific reason,
denial of promotion in favour of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Congress
Mohli, rest of the petitioners have been granted promotion to the higher
post.
2026:JHHC:7246-DB
6. The ground as has been shown in the show cause is that the
petitioner no. 1, namely, Congress Mohli has got the higher qualification
without any permission of the employer. However, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners has tried to make out a case for grant of
promotion to be given in favour of the petitioner no. 1, namely,
Congress Mohli, but this Court, since, is in the jurisdiction of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and, as such, being conscious of the fact
that there cannot be any further direction by holding the decision so
taken by the opposite parties concerned in denial of the promotion of the
petitioner no. 1, namely, Congress Mohli, rather the same can be
agitated by the concerned employee, i.e, the petitioner no. 1, namely,
Congress Mohli by filing appropriate application before the appropriate
Forum.
7. Accordingly, this contempt case is disposed of, however, with
liberty to the petitioner no. 1, namely, Congress Mohli, if he so wishes,
he may approach before the appropriate forum on the issue of denial of
promotion on the higher post.
8. Accordingly, the contempt Case (Civil) No.163 of 2025 stands
disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Date : 16th March, 2026
Kamlesh/ Nishant/-
