Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Pradumna Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Jharkhand HC
2025
Pradumna Kumar Vs the State of JharkhandPradumna Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Dismissed¶31

Pradumna Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC16 Jan 2025WPC/2244/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand HC Ranchi; Ananda Sen J; 16.01.2025; W.P.(S) No.2244 of 2022 dismissed; petitioner Pradumna Kumar Assistant Teacher Upgraded High School Gorangkocha appointed vide Memo No.927 dated 12.07.2019; prayer to quash Memo No.262 dated 30.09.2021 Annexure-6 barring teaching classes and departmental work; fake matriculation document; failed in matriculation hence ineligible; Bihar School Examination Board discrepancy resolved; charges proved in departmental proceeding; second show cause notice; dismissed from service; no procedural lapse; appointment illegal; dismissal order itself not challenged; no relief entitled.

What did the court decide?

There is no procedural lapse in conducting the departmental proceeding; since the petitioner had failed in matriculation he was not an eligible candidate to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher, his appointment is illegal, and the court finds no illegality in his removal from service.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Memo No.262 dated 30.09.2021 issued by Respondent No.4 directing Respondent No.6 not to take any teaching class from the petitioner and banning him from departmental work should be quashed. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

There is no procedural lapse in conducting the departmental proceeding; since the petitioner had failed in matriculation he was not an eligible candidate to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher, his appointment is illegal, and the court finds no illegality in his removal from service.

Key takeaways

In so far as this writ petition is concerned, the petitioner has not even challenged the order by which he was dismissed from service consequent upon the properly conducted departmental enquiry.ratio¶29
From what has been held above, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Ananda Sen, J.), W.P.(S) No.2244 of 2022, decided 16.01.2025 - Writ petition by an Assistant Teacher of Upgraded High School, Gorangkocha seeking quashing of Memo No.262 dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure-6), whereby Respondent No.4 directed Respondent No.6 not to take any teaching class from the petitioner and banned him from departmental work, DISMISSED. Departmental enquiry established that the petitioner had failed in matriculation and produced a fake document (Bihar School Examination Board verification, second show cause); his appointment was held illegal and no illegality found in his removal; the petitioner had not even challenged the dismissal order; he was held not entitled to any relief.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2244 of 2022

------

Pradumna Kumar, son of Shatrughna Kumar, resident of Village Kukru, P.O. Kukru, P.S. Tiruldih, District Seraikella Kharsawan.

… … Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Director, Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

3. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

4. The District Superintendent of Education, Seraikella Kharsawan.

5. The Block Extension Education Officer, Ichagarh, District Seraikella Kharsawan.

6. The Principal, Upgraded High School, Gorangkocha, Ichagarh, Seraikella Kharsawan.

7. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, office at Kali Bagan, Namkum, District Ranchi.

… … Respondents

------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Amrita Banerjee, AC to GP-I Mr. Bhawesh Kumar, Advocate

------

07/ 16.01.2025

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the Memo No.262 dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure-6), whereby and where under, respondent No.4 had directed respondent No.6, not to take any teaching class from the petitioner and ban him from any departmental work.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Upgraded High School, Gorangkocha vide Memo No.927 dated 12.07.2019.

3. It is the allegation against the petitioner that on the basis of fake document, he has entered in service. It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioner has failed in matriculation, thus, he is not eligible to be appointed.

4. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner and in the said departmental proceeding, charges against the petitioner were proved. It was established that without passing

1

the matriculation, he has produced a fake document.

5. The respondents verified the document of the petitioner and though there were some discrepancies in the report sent by the Bihar School Examination Board, yet finally the Board and also the School have approved the fact that the petitioner has failed in matriculation. The Principal of the School also verified the aforesaid fact.

6. Ultimately, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service after a conclusion of the departmental enquiry.

7. There is no procedural lapse in conducting the departmental proceeding. Since the petitioner had failed in matriculation, he is not an eligible candidate to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher. His appointment is thus, illegal. On that basis the petitioner has been removed from service. I find no illegality in removing the petitioner from service.

8. So far as this writ petition is concerned, I find that the petitioner has not even challenged the order by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, consequent upon holding a proper departmental enquiry.

9. Be that as it may. From what has been held above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed .

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Prashant.Cp-2

2

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Memo No.262 dated 30.09.2021 issued by Respondent No.4 directing Respondent No.6 not to take any teaching class from the petitioner and banning him from departmental work should be quashed.¶20
2.
Whether the petitioner, alleged to have entered service on the basis of a fake matriculation document and dismissed after a departmental enquiry in which charges were proved, is entitled to any relief in this writ petition.medium confidence¶22
The court held
There is no procedural lapse in conducting the departmental proceeding; since the petitioner had failed in matriculation he was not an eligible candidate to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher, his appointment is illegal, and the court finds no illegality in his removal from service.ratio¶28

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Memo No.262 dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure-6), whereby Respondent No.4 directed Respondent No.6 not to take any teaching class from the petitioner and to ban him from any departmental work; challenged in this writ petition.¶20
Issued by Respondent No.4 (District Superintendent of Education, Seraikella Kharsawan) - administrative order · 30.09.2021
Prior proceeding
Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Upgraded High School, Gorangkocha vide Memo No.927 dated 12.07.2019.¶21
Prior proceeding
Respondents' specific allegation: the petitioner entered service on the basis of a fake document, having failed in matriculation and thus being ineligible for appointment.¶22
Prior proceeding
A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the charges were proved; it was established that without passing matriculation he had produced a fake document.¶23
Prior proceeding
Documents verified: though the report sent by the Bihar School Examination Board showed some discrepancies, finally the Board and the School approved that the petitioner had failed in matriculation; the Principal also verified this.¶26
Prior proceeding
After a second show cause notice and conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service.¶27

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Pradumna Kumar, son of Shatrughna Kumar, resident of Village Kukru, P.O. Kukru, P.S. Tiruldih, District Seraikella Kharsawan¶3
Mr. Manoj Kumar Ram
respondent
The State of Jharkhand (Respondent No.1)¶6
Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Mr. Bhawesh Kumar
respondent
The Director, Higher Education, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No.2)¶7
respondent
The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No.3)¶8
respondent
The District Superintendent of Education, Seraikella Kharsawan (Respondent No.4)¶9
respondent
The Block Extension Education Officer, Ichagarh, District Seraikella Kharsawan (Respondent No.5)¶10
respondent
The Principal, Upgraded High School, Gorangkocha, Ichagarh, Seraikella Kharsawan (Respondent No.6)¶11
respondent
The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (Respondent No.7)¶12

Coram

AI extract

Ananda Senauthor¶15

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Jharkhand HC
Decided on: 16 Jan 2025 · January
Registered: 13 May 2022
Case no.: WPC/2244/2022
CNR: JHHC010158352022
Bench: Sri Ananda Sen
Disposal: Dismissed
Case type: W.P.(S)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Sri Ananda Sen

Sumi Devi Vs Heavy Engineering Corporation
15 Jan 2025
Pramod Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary
15 Jan 2025
Dr.Sahdeo Das Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.
15 Jan 2025
Savita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand Thr the Secretary Pr Secretary School Education and Literacy Deptt
16 Jan 2025
Most Savitri Devi and Anr. Vs Central Coal Fields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.
16 Jan 2025
Mira Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Health and Ors.
16 Jan 2025

Cite this judgement

Pradumna Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand, WPC/2244/2022 (JH), decided on 16 January 2025.

The High Court of Jharkhand publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Procedural history6

Memo No.262 dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure-6), whereby Respondent No.4 directed Respondent No.6 not to take any teaching class from the petitioner and to ban him from any departmental work; challenged in this writ petition.Issued by Respondent No.4 (District Superintendent of Education, Seraikella Kharsawan) - administrative order · 30.09.2021
Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Upgraded High School, Gorangkocha vide Memo No.927 dated 12.07.2019.
Respondents' specific allegation: the petitioner entered service on the basis of a fake document, having failed in matriculation and thus being ineligible for appointment.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Ananda Sen

Parties & counsel