Antodaya Adivasi Ucch Vidyalaya through Its Head Master Sudhir Kumar Pal Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:9370

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No. 2604 of 2018

¶4

Antodaya Adivasi Ucch Vidyalaya Deogana, P.O. Deogana, P.S. Meral Dist. Garhwa through its Head Master Sudhir Kumar Pal aged about 58 ½ years son of Shri Jivnath Prasad, Resident of Village-Uchari, P.O., P.S. Dist.-Garhwa.

¶5

Gopichand Choudhary, aged about 58 yrs, son of Late Jatan Choudhary, resident of village-Terke, P.O. Ataula, P.S. Meral District-Garhwa, Posted as Assistant Teacher Antodaya Adivasi Ucch Vidyalaya Deogana, P.O. Deogana, P.S. Meral, District- Garhwa.

¶6

..… Petitioner (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand

¶9

The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa Dist Ranchi

¶10

The Director, Secondary Education, Department of school Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa Dist Ranchi

¶11

The High-Level committee, represented through its chairman Cum-joint secretary Department of school education & Literacy Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa Dist Ranchi.

¶12

The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & Dist. Garhwa.

¶13

The Jharkhand Academic Council, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District-Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s)

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Arpan Mishra, Amritansh Vats, Shivam Anand, Arpan Maryash Ekka, Amartya Choubey, Aashish Choudhary, Advocate

¶16

For the Resp.-State: Mr. Shubham Mishra, A.C. to S.C. (Mines)-II

¶17

1

¶18

2026:JHHC:9370

¶19

C.A.V. ON 27/02/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:02/04/2026

¶20

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

2. In the instant writ petition the petitioners have prayed

¶22

for the following reliefs: -

¶23

A. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure-18) of the High-Level Committee as constituted by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand in the context of the petitioner- school relating to its taking over control and management by the Government by which the said committee took decision simpliciter holding that it is not within the domain of the committee to take any decision relating to take over the petitioner school by the Government contrary to the Government's unaided Educational policy as grants are given, which being misconceived, misconstrued, illegal and contrary to its own decision in the light of the undisputed fact and finding that the petitioner -school established on 02.10.1981 and was granted permission for its establishment on 19.02.1985 under section 3(3) of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over of Control and Management) Act, 1981 (hence forth 1981 Act) after several inspection and inquiries by the concerned officers with recommendation for taking over the school by the Government and since then the petitioner- school has been functioning and the action taken in exercise of the power under the said section 3(3) of the 1981 Act shall have the binding force also and in violation of the Hon'ble court's order dated 18.10.2016 in W.P.(S) No. 3349 of 2015.

¶24

B. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs order /orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to Take Over the control and management of the petitioner-school in view of the fact that the petitioner school has been granted permission for its establishment U/s 3(3) of the 1981 Act, on certain conditions of transfer of land and assets to be made in terms of Section 3(3) of

¶25

2

¶26

2026:JHHC:9370

¶27

the said 1981 Act in the name of Government, which conditions have been fulfilled by the petitioner school and despite the same owing to inaction and negligence final notification relating to recognition of the petitioner school could not have been made in spite of the representation of the petitioner-school no decision has been taken by the State by issuing a formal notification under section 3 (3) of the Act for taking over the management of the school although all the formalities for handing over the school to State has been completed 3 decades before inspite of all the formalities completed, Govt is not taking over, thus frustrating the entire purpose and also depriving the teachers who are contributing on meager payment; though there has been no impediment for recognition of the petitioner-school.

¶28

C. For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for payment of salary and other consequential benefits to the Teachers and Non-Teaching Staffs engaged in the Petitioner-School. D. For issuance of an appropriate writ /writs ,order/orders, direction/ directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in memo no 2156 dated 30.07.2018 (Annexure-20) issued by the respondent no 3 by which the order has been passed refusing the claim of the petitioner -school as to take over by the Government holding that Jharkhand Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Act 2004 is in vogue and contrary to the same no decision can be taken which being irrational, misconceived, misconstrued and illogical in view of the fact that no discussion about the claim of the petitioner as founded and agitated in the matter that the school got its permission for its establishment u/s 3(3) of 1981 Act followed by several inquiries, inspections and recommendations.

¶29

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner-school was granted permission on 19.02.1985 to establish the school and since then it has been functioning. The petitioner-school on earlier occasion filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 3349 of 2015 with a prayer for a direction upon the State

¶30

3

¶31

2026:JHHC:9370

¶32

Government for taking over of the school.

¶33

4. The writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 3349 of 2015 was

¶34

disposed of vide order dated 18.10.2016 in the following

¶35

terms:-

¶36

“5. Be that as it may. The fact remains that the petitioner-school was granted permission to establish on 19.02.1985 and as pleaded in the writ petition it has been functioning since then. It appears that some grant was given to the petitioner-school and the Jharkhand Academic Council constituted the governing body for management of the school. Whether the petitioner-school should be taken-over by the respondentState or not would be a decision exclusively within the domain of the executives and this Court is not inclined to venture into the matter. However, if the petitioner-school fulfills all requisite conditions under the presently existing Rules/Regulations, the respondent-State may take a decision in the matter, expeditiously.

¶37

6. Referring to letter dated 28.10.2015, a copy of which was tendered on 17.10.2016, it is stated that on the representation of Jharkhand State un-aided Shiksha Sanyukt Sangharsh Morcha, a High Level Committee has been constituted and some of the issues of un-aided schools are under active consideration of the Government. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner-school also may be permitted to submit its representation before the High Level Committee, which shall make a recommendation on taking over control and management of the petitioner-school by the State Government.

¶38

7. Acceding to the request of the learned Senior counsel, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner-school to approach the High-Level Committee constituted vide order contained in letter dated 28.10.2015, provided the aforesaid Committee is seized with identical issue of take-over of private schools. Upon recommendation of the HighLevel Committee, even otherwise the State Government shall take a final decision in the instant matter. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner-school.”

¶39

5. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioner-school has been rejected by an order as contained in Memo No. 2156 dated 30.07.2018 issued by the Director (Secondary Education), Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand.

¶40

From bare perusal of the order dated 30.07.2018,

¶41

I find that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order and further the order is cryptic in nature. The Hon’ble 4

¶42

2026:JHHC:9370

¶43

Supreme Court in the case of Basudev Dutta versus State

¶44

of West Bengal and Others, reported in 2024 SCC Online

¶45

SC 3616 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:

¶46

“12.2 It is settled law that every administrative or quasi-judicial order must contain the reasons. Such reasons go a long way in not only ensuring that the authority has applied his mind to the facts and the law, but also provide the grounds for the aggrieved party to assail the order in the manner known to law. In the absence of any reasons, it also possesses a difficulty for the judicial authorities to test the correctness of the order or in other words, exercise its power of judicial review…...”

¶47

6. The only ground which has been mentioned in the impugned order for rejection is that if the petitionerschool complies with the conditions mentioned in the Jharkhand State Financial Educational Institutions (Grants) Act, 2004 and the Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Rule, 2004, the grant shall be provided to the petitioner-school.

¶48

7. The State Government has tried to improve the reasons mentioned in the impugned order by filing a Counter Affidavit but the same is contrary to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Versus Chief Election Commission ,

¶49

New Delhi reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 and in the case of East Coast Railway Versus Mahadev Appa Rao reported in 2010 (7) SCC 678 . As a matter of fact, the law is no more res integra that the reasons cannot be supplemented in the shape of Affidavit.

¶50

8. The petitioner has filed a Supplementary Affidavit 5

¶51

2026:JHHC:9370

¶52

indicating therein about the representation dated 07.07.2023 made to the District Education Officer, Garhwa informing about the availability of 14 Classrooms that is present in the petitioner-school and it was a shortcoming pointed out by the Screening Committee for grant-in-aid.

¶53

The petitioner has further filed a Supplementary Affidavit dated 09.10.2023; wherein it has been stated at paragraph-5:-

¶54

“5. That it is submitted that Block Education Officer has conducted the physical enquiry of the petitioner-school whereby, he has found that the school is equipped with all facilities which were required and pursuant thereto, vide letter dated 14.08.2023 as contained in Letter No.294 issued under the signature of Block Education Officer addressed to District Education Officer, Garhwa stating therein the details of the enquiry of the petitioner-school.”

¶55

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and the judgments

¶56

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Basudev Dutta (supra), Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and East Coast Railway (supra), the order contained in Memo No. 2156 dated 30.07.2018 issued by the Director, (Secondary Education), Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, is hereby, set-aside.

¶57

The matter is remitted to the Director (Secondary Education) Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand-Respondent No.3, to take into consideration the statements made in supplementary affidavit and also the Letter dated 14.08.2023 as contained in Letter No. 294 issued by Block Education Officer,

¶58

6

¶59

2026:JHHC:9370

¶60

wherein the necessary compliance has been shown for grant-in-aid in terms of Jharkhand State Financial Educational Institutions (Grants) Act, 2004 and Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Rule, 2004; and thereafter, pass necessary orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order.

¶61

10. The decision dated 24.11.2017 of the High-Level Committee as constituted by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand shall not come in the way of the decision to be taken by the Director (Secondary Education), Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand.

¶62

11. Needless to say, that if the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits, the consequential benefits to Teachers and Non-Teaching Staffs be granted within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.

¶63

12. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of. Pending IAs, if any, are closed.

¶64

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶65

Dated:02 /04/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R

¶66

Uploaded on 06.04.2026

¶67

7

Antodaya Adivasi Ucch Vidyalaya through Its Head Master Sudhir Kumar Pal v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antodaya Adivasi Ucch Vidyalaya through Its Head Master Sudhir Kumar Pal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemanti Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rozi Parween Vs State of Jharkhand

Ranjit Rai Alias Ranjit Kumar Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Santosh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Sohan Lal Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary Deptt of Revenue and Land Reforms