Disposed¶21

Md. Salam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2025WPC/468/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madarsa Sultanul Madaris, Ropni, Jamuniya, Deoghar; Managing Committee approval; ad-hoc appointment of person from different Madarsa; advertisement Ref. No.-15 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024; due process of law; representation before Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council; opportunity of hearing; informed decision within six weeks; writ petition disposed of with liberty and direction; High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi; Rajesh Shankar, J.; W.P.(C) No.468 of 2025; School Education and Literacy Department; Deoghar.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation before respondent no.7; respondent no.7 to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned party and take an appropriate informed decision within six weeks from the date of filing of the representation. ¶21

Md. Salam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the Managing Committee of Madarsa Sultanul Madaris, Ropni, Jamuniya, Deoghar should be allowed to run the Madarsa without any interference and interruption so that imparting of education may continue, instead of the ad-hoc appointment of a person from a different Madarsa. +1 more

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner was given liberty to prefer a representation before respondent no.7 (Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council).

¶20

Key takeaways

On receipt of the representation, respondent no.7 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned party and take an appropriate informed decision within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation.ratio¶20
The writ petition was disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.468 of 2025) — Md. Salam v. The State of Jharkhand & others — Madarsa administration — respondent-authorities appointed a person from a different Madarsa to run Madarsa Sultanul Madaris, Ropni, Jamuniya, Deoghar on ad-hoc basis and initiated an appointment process vide advertisement Ref. No.-15 of 2024 dated 23.08.2024 without approval of the Managing Committee of the Madarsa and without following due process of law — counter affidavit filed by respondent no.6 — Court, without entering into the merit of the case, disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation before respondent no.7 (Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council), which shall, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned party, take an appropriate informed decision within six weeks from the date of filing of the representation. (Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.468 of 2025

¶2

¶3

Md. Salam, aged about 69 years, son of Late Md. Kashim, resident of Ropaniya, Panchayat Jamuniya, Block Mohanpur, P.O. & P.S.-Mohanpur, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand. ......... Petitioner.

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, At-Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, At-Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.

¶9

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Paragna, Dumka.

¶10

The District Education Officer, Deoghar.

¶11

The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi. .......... Respondents.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶14

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Pawan, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, A.C. to G.A.-V For the Res. No.7 : Ms. Suman Roy, A.C. to Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate

¶16

¶17

Order No.03 Date: 04.03.2025

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by allowing Managing Committee of the Madarsa, namely, Madarsa Sultanul Madaris, Ropni, Jamuniya, Deoghar to run the same without any interference and interruption, so that the process of imparting education by the said Madarsa may continue as the respondent-authorities has appointed a person from different Madarsa to run the same on ad-hoc basis. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to forthwith stop the appointment process initiated vide advertisement as contained

¶19

in Ref. No.-15 of 2024 dated 23^rd August, 2024 without approval of the Managing Committee of the said Madarsa and without following the due process of law.

¶20

Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.6, however, considering that respondent no.7 has to take appropriate decision on the issue raised in the writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a representation before the respondent no.7. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.7 after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned party, shall take an appropriate informed decision in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the representation.

¶21

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

¶22

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶23

Rohit /

¶24

-2-

¶25

W.P.(C) No.468 of 2025

Md. Salam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Salam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Balaji Coke Industries Thro Its Prop Suresh Chandra Agarwal And Others Vs Coal India Ltd. through Its Chairman And Ors.

Sarwajit Safalta And Anr. Vs Ranchi University Through Its Vice Chancellor And Ors.

Nirmala Mishra Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Rai Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

Bikram Kaibart Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shambhu Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand