Congress Mohli Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Congress Mohli Vs the State of Jharkhand — Contempt of Court | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt case disposed of upon finding substantial compliance of the order dated 07.06.2022; liberty given to petitioner no. 1 (Congress Mohli) to approach the appropriate forum on the denial of promotion to the higher post.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.06.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5258 of 2017 has been complied with by the opposite parties. +1 more

Court's answer

The order dated 07.06.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5258 of 2017 has substantially been complied with; all petitioners except petitioner no. 1 (Congress Mohli) have been granted promotion to the higher post.

Ratio / Principle

Since this Court is acting within the jurisdiction of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it cannot pass any further direction overriding the decision taken by the opposite parties denying promotion to petitioner no. 1 (Congress Mohli); that grievance is to be agitated by the concerned employee before the appropriate forum.

Key takeaways

Liberty is granted to petitioner no. 1 (Congress Mohli), if he so wishes, to approach the appropriate forum on the issue of denial of promotion on the higher post.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cont. Case (Civil) No.163 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Sujit Narayan Prasad & Sanjay Prasad, JJ.), decided 16th March, 2026 — Filed for non-compliance of the order dated 07.06.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5258 of 2017. The show cause disclosed that all petitioners except petitioner no. 1 (Congress Mohli) had been granted promotion; petitioner no. 1 was denied promotion on the ground that he had acquired a higher qualification while discharging duties without permission of the employer, against which the petitioners filed a rejoinder submitting that no permission is required for taking Higher Education. Held: the order dated 07.06.2022 has substantially been complied with; however, the Court, being within the jurisdiction of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, cannot pass any further direction overriding the decision taken by the opposite parties denying promotion to petitioner no. 1, and that grievance may be agitated by the concerned employee before the appropriate forum. Contempt case disposed of with liberty to petitioner no. 1 to approach the appropriate forum on the issue of denial of promotion on the higher post.

2026:JHHC:7246-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No.163 of 2025

Congress Mohli, aged about 61 years, Son of Late Manbharan Mohli, Resident of Khatisari, P.O. Satpahari, P.S.- Dumka, District- Dumka, Jharkhand,

Saorj Kumar, aged about 53 years, son of Late Awadh Bihari Mandal, Resident of Castairs Town, P.O.-B. Deoghar, P.S.-Deoghar, DistrictDeoghar, Jharkhand,

Sushil Kumar Soren, aged about 53 years, Son of Manishal M. Soren, Resident of – Kushbedia, P.O- Siktia, P.S.- Jama, District- Dumka, Jharkhand,

Sushil Marandi, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Khara Marandi, Resident of Fuljhari, P.O.-Siktia, P.S.-Jama District- Dumka, Jharkhand,

Karnika Kumari, aged about 61 years, Wife of Parmanand Yadav, Resident of Parpahara, P.O.- Roundhiya, P.S.-Saraiyahat, District-Dumka, Jharkhand,

Raj Kumari, aged about 56 years, Daughter of Sikander Prasad Sah, Resident of Hansdiha, P.O. & P.S.-Hansdiha, District-Dumka, Jharkhand.

Sunaiyana Devi, aged about 61 years, Daughter of Nageshwar Prasad Yadav, Resident of Saraiyahat, P.O. & P.S.- Saraiyahat, District- Dumka, Jharkhand,

Santosh Kumar Hembrom, aged about 53 years, Son of Matal Hembrom, Resident of Rajapathar, P.O.-Bouria, P.S.- Ramgarh, District- Dumka, Jharkhand,

Pradeep Kumar Mandal, aged about 56 years, Son of Matal Hembrom, Resident of Jarmundi, P.O. & P.S.- Jarmundi, District- Dumka, Jharkhand,

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

The State of Jharkhand,

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,

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,

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,

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,

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, DistrictDumka, Jharkhand,

1

2026:JHHC:7246-DB

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,

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 ----------

Order No.10 / Dated 16^th March, 2026

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.

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.

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.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.

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.

2

2026:JHHC:7246-DB

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.

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.

Accordingly, the contempt Case (Civil) No.163 of 2025 stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Date : 16^th March, 2026

Kamlesh/ Nishant/-

3