IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5015 of 2022 ------

Raghubansh Kumar, son of Nathuni Kumar, resident of Flat No.2A, Aryapuri, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.

Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

2. State Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Medni Nagar, P.O. & P.S.

Medni Nagar, District Palamau.

4. District Education Officer-cum-District Programme Officer, Jharkhand Education Project, P.O. & P.S. Medni Nagar, District Palamau.

… … Respondents ------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, AC to SC (L & C)-I Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Rajvardhan, Advocate ------

06/ 27.01.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s) for quashing the impugned Office Order issued under Memo No: 227 dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure-5) whereby and whereunder the respondent No:4 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice; And/Or for issuance of any such Writ(s) /Order(s) /Direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.”

that the impugned Office Order as contained in Memo No.227/ Medininagar, dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), issued by the respondents for termination of service contract of the petitioner is highly uncalled for as the petitioner is working for about fourteen years and no proper enquiry has been conducted in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has also rebutted the allegation, but the same was not considered.

4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – JEPC submits that there is no procedural illegality in issuance of so called letter of termination, as the same has been given effect to in accordance with the terms of Contract.

5. After going through the impugned letter of termination of service contract of the petitioner, I find that no plausible ground has been mentioned which can justify the termination of service contract of the petitioner, who is working for about fourteen years. Merely writing one line that the show cause reply is unsatisfactory, does not meet the ends of justice. Reasons should have been given in the impugned order justifying the conclusion, which is missing. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Office Order as contained in Memo No.227/ Medininagar, dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), is set aside.

7. However, the matter is remanded back to the Project Director, Jharkhand Education Project Council (JEPC), to pass a reasoned order considering the show cause reply filed by the petitioner, dealing with each of the imputation and the reply of the petitioner.

8. If it is found that the reply to the show cause notice is acceptable, then appropriate order should be passed reinstating the petitioner or placing the petitioner in any other post if the original post is not vacant.

9. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of (ANANDA SEN, J.)

27^th January, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 04.02.2026