Disposed

Catherine Gloria Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC14 Sept 2026WPC/6941/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A teacher appointed at a Government-aided minority school in Ranchi sought court intervention after the State failed to approve her appointment and fix her pay scale since her joining on 03.04.2025. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Director, Secondary Education to treat the petition as a representation and pass a reasoned, speaking order on the claim within 8 weeks, with consequential orders to follow within 2 weeks if decided in the petitioner's favour.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to treat the writ petition as a representation and pass a reasoned speaking order on the petitioner's claim within 8 weeks; consequential orders within 2 weeks if decided in petitioner's favour.

Catherine Gloria Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S). No. 6941 of 2026

¶3

¶4

Catherine Gloria Kujur, aged about 35 years, D/o Sushil Kujur, R/o. Village Baram Dipa toli, P.O. Mahilong, P.S.-Tatisilwai, District-Ranchi, PIN835103(Jharkhand) ………. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

Secretary Department of School Education & Literacy Development, Government of Jharkhand, M.D.I. Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District - Ranchi, PIN 834004 (Jharkhand)

¶8

Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, M.D.I.Building, P.Ο. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶9

District Education Officer, Ranchi, P.O+ P.S &District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 5. Carmel Girls’ High School, Samlong, Ranchi through its secretary, having ithe office at Namkum, PO + PS Namkum & District-Ranchi, PIN 8340110 (Jharkhand) ………. Respondents .

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

-----------

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jazeb Iqbal, AC to SC (L&C)-III ----------

¶14

02/ 14.09.2026 By way of present writ application, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents, particularly respondent No. 3, to immediately and forthwith grant approval to the appointment of petitioner which has been made against a vacant and sanctioned post and as the petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria fixed by the State Government and after giving approval, fix the pay-scale of petitioner and pay salary thereto w.e.f. his initial date of joining i.e. 03.04.2025.

¶15

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner joined the services at Carmel Girls High School, Ranchi, which is a Government Aided Minority School, but till date the State Government has not given approval to his appointment, and hence, till date his pay-scale has not been fixed. He further submits that as per the existing policy of the State Government, the salary of teachers working in minority school are paid by the State Government at par with the Government

¶16

¶17

( 2026:JHHC:28112 )

¶18

teachers in the form of grant-in-aid. Learned counsel further submits that vide letter dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure-5), the Principal-in-Charge, Carmel Girls High School, Samlong, Ranchi, has requested the District Education Officer, Ranchi for giving approval to the appointment of petitioner but till date the approval has not been granted.

¶19

3. He accordingly submits that it would be suffice if this writ petition is treated as representation of the petitioner and a direction be given to the respondents to pass a reasoned order within a stipulated period.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since no counteraffidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents; as such, the petitioner may be directed to file fresh representation before the concerned respondents so that his grievance can be redressed.

¶21

5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and limited submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the Respondent No. 3 to treat this writ application as representation and take a decision with regard to the claim made by the petitioner in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations as well as in the light of Annexure-5, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

6. It goes without saying that if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, necessary consequential order be also issued within a period of 2 weeks thereafter.

¶23

7. Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of this writ application to the concerned respondent so that his grievance can be redressed at the earliest.

¶24

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶26

14.09.2026 Nandini/Uploaded on-

¶27

Catherine Gloria Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Catherine Gloria Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases