Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
Muzaffar Ansari, son of Khalil Ansari – Appellant
Versus
The Jharkhand Academic Council, through the Secretary, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.166 of 2024
Decided on : 29-01-2026
For the Appellant :Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate Md. Shahabuddin, Advocate
Cancellation of approved appointments unsustainable without concrete evidence against transparency, based solely on vague surmises, and absent show cause notice; prior enquiry clearance and accrued rights protected.
Headnote:(A) Writ Petition (Service) - Appointment Approval - Selection process cleared by prior enquiry finding transparency and compliance with guidelines - Subsequent enquiry report concluding doubt in transparency based on vague allegations without concrete evidence or specific instances - Cancellation of approval without show cause notice - Held, conclusions cannot be drawn on surmises or presumptions; prior approval confers accrued rights; impugned orders lacking substantive material quashed; approval revived; direction to appoint. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners selected for posts pursuant to advertisement in non-government aided institution; prior complaint enquired by committee which opined process transparent, no irregularity; approval granted; intervener complained alleging non-transparency, discrimination, direct applications, non-publication of results; new committee found some doubts but no malpractice in evaluation or money exchange; recommendation led to cancellation of approval.
Findings of Court:
Impugned letters dated 28.12.2023 and 03.08.2023 quashed; approval letter dated 01.07.2023 revived; respondents directed to issue appointment order.
Issues: Validity of second enquiry report's conclusion on lack of transparency; requirement of concrete evidence for alleging irregularity; necessity of show cause notice before cancellation post-approval.
Ratio Decidendi: Authority cannot conclude process lacks transparency merely on presumption without concrete evidence; prior clearance negates similar allegations; accrued rights post-approval require opportunity of hearing before adverse action.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ challenges cancellation of approved madarsa appointments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. initial selection transparent, prior enquiry approved by jac. (Para 4) |
| 3. second enquiry finds no malpractices but doubts transparency. (Para 5) |
| 4. cancellation invalid sans concrete evidence or show-cause notice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. impugned orders quashed, appointments revived and directed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
1.By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the decision as contained in Memo No. JAC/Mada/232-3871/23 dated 28.12.2023 (Annexure-8) issued under the signature of the Respondent No.1; whereby the approval granted to the appointment of the petitioners vide letter no. JAC/Mada/232- 2118/23 dated 01.07.2023 has been cancelled on the strength of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda as contained in letter no. 929 dated 3.08.2023.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the letter no. 929 dated 3.8.2023 (Annexure-7), whereby and whereunder on the basis of an ex-parte enquiry in relation to appointment of petitioners on the posts of Alim, Moulvi, Hafiz, Inter Trained and Matric Trained, their appointment has been recommended for cancellation on ground of lack of fairness in the selection process.
(iii) The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of the enquiry report dated 17.7.2023 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder on the basis of vague and frivolous allegation it has been prima facie opined that the allegation in relation to appointment of the petitioners by way of favour is true and hence, they have been recommended for termination.
(iv) The petitioners upon quashing of the impugned orders further pray for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to pay monthly salary to the petitioners in lieu of their valid and lawful appointment as against the sanctioned and vacant posts, which has been duly approved vide letter of JAC contained in memo no. 2118/23 dated 1.7.2023.”
2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners, learned counsel representing the respondents – State & Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC), and learned counsel representing the interveners.
3. Be it noted that the intervener is not claiming any independent right. He is also not claiming for any appointment. Since, on his complaint, the impugned order of removal was passed, he has addressed this Court.
4. After hearing the parties at length, I find that after publication of an Advertisement being No.04/Mad/23 dated 20.04.2023, these petitioners were selected to the post of “Alim, Moulvi, Hafiz” in “Madarsa Darul Hoda, Kendua, Lalmatia, Godda”. The said Madarsa is a Non-Government Aided Madarsa.
4.1. After the petitioners were selected, the intervener complained about the selection process. Upon his complaint, a Committee was formed for enquiring into the matter and based on the enquiry report of the Committee, the Deputy Commissioner of the District recommended withdrawal of approval of appointment of the petitioners.
4.2. From the records, I find that prior to the appointment, a similar complaint was lodged. The said complaint was enquired into by a Three Member Committee consisting of Regional Education Officer, Mahagama, Regional Education Officer, Godda and Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Godda.
4.3. On conclusion, of the aforesaid enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted. In the said report, it was opined that against the six sanctioned posts in Madarsa, written examination and interview were conducted. It was also opined that the guidelines and directions of Jharkhand Academic Council were followed and the President and the Secretary of the School Committee did not participate in the selection process, which suggest that the process was tr
