High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi. This single-judge bench dismisses a writ petition filed by an untrained Sanskrit teacher seeking appointment against eligibility rules. The court held that a 36-year delay, despite multiple representations, demonstrates blatant misuse of court process.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(2026:JHHC:2355)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S). No. 100 of 2024
Ramesh Mishra, aged about 58 years, son of Jagdeo Mishra, Resident of Village - Salve, P.O. & P.S. - Balumath, District - Palamau, presently residing at C/o Nand Kumar Pandey, Resident of Village + PO - Badla, PS & District - Lohardaga. … … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S. & District - Lohardaga.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Gyandeep Compound, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District - Ranchi.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S. & District- Lohardaga.
6. The District Education Officer, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S. & District - Lohardaga.
7. Satish Kumar Pathak, son of Shri Bindeshwari Pathak, resident of Church Road, Ranchi, PO - GPO, PS - Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
… … Respondents
--- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP - III For the JAC : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate : Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate ---
07/29th January 2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner prays that he be appointed as Untrained Sanskrit Teacher in place of respondent no. 7 (wrongly typed as respondent no. 5 in Para No. 1 of the writ petition) as the Appointing Authority has illegally and deliberately did not consider his
1
(2026:JHHC:2355)
appointment in spite of the fact that he has obtained more marks than the last selected candidate.
3. From Paragraph No. - 13 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 5, it is clear that the panel was prepared in the year 1988 from which the appointment was made and the life of the panel was only for one year. The petitioner after 14 years represented before the Deputy Commissioner. Further after more than 21 years of the representation, he filed this writ petition. Thus, 36 years have elapsed since the panel was prepared. This is a glaring example of the misuse of the process of the Court, but I am not passing any harsh order against the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, on the ground of delay and latches, this writ petition is dismissed .
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Aditi Dated: - 29th January 2026 Uploaded on:- 04.02.2026
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches?
Whether the appellant's repeated representations over 36 years constitute misuse of court process?
Ramesh Mishra
The State of Jharkhand
The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Jharkhand
The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council
The District Superintendent of Education, Lohardaga
Ananda Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
