THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT vs INDRANI CHAKRAVARTY

( 2026:JHHC:14478-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 302 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School Education and
Literacy Department, having its office at Project Building, P.O. and P.S.-
Dhurwa, District – Ranchi.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Secondary Education Directorate,
School Education and Literacy Department, Project Building, Dhurwa,
Ranchi
3. The District Education Officer, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District- Dhanabd.
….. …. Appellants
Versus

1. Indrani Chakrabarti, wife of Shri Samir Kumar Acharya, Resident of Flat
No. C/1, Vijaya Enclave, North Loco Tank, Hirapur, P.O., P.S.& District-
Dhanbad
2. Abhoya Sundari Girls’ High School, Dhanbad (A Linguistic Minority
School) through its Secretary, office at School Campus, Hirapur,
Dhanbad. ….. …. Respondents
------
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Appellants : Mr Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II
Mr Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
-----
04 /Dated: 12.05.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 133 days in instituting this
appeal.
3. We have perused the averments made in the I.A. and we are satisfied
that sufficient cause has been shown. Accordingly, we condone the delay and
dispose of this I.A.
L.P.A. No. 302 of 2025
4. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, we have heard the appeal after condoning the delay in instituting the
same.
5. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated
23.01.2024 allowing the respondent’s W.P.(S) No. 4533 of 2023 and directing
1

( 2026:JHHC:14478-DB )
that she be granted notional promotion from the date of issuance of the
promotional order dated 31.07.2017 with all consequential benefits.
6. Mr Ashwini Bhushan, learned AC to Sr.SC-II submitted that the
respondent was promoted as Principal in a Minority Educational Institution
without seeking any prior approval from the Director, Secondary Education,
Jharkhand. He submitted that such a promotion was therefore not legal and by
the time, the respondent's case was considered for approval, she had already
retired on 31.12.2019. He, therefore, submitted that there was no question of
granting any approval, post the retirement of the respondent. Accordingly, he
submitted that the impugned order is vulnerable and warrants interference.
7. Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
defended the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He
pointed out that the respondent was promoted as Principal of a Minority
Educational Institution and consequently, there was no requirement of prior
approval. He submitted that after the promotion, approval was applied for on
17.01.2018 and even reminder was addressed on 03.07.2018 and 20.12.2021.
Even though the respondent had retired on 31.12.2019, belatedly, by order
dated 07.11.2022, the respondent’s case was not considered only on the
ground that the respondent had in the meanwhile retired from service.
8. Mr Sinha submitted that the appellants cannot be allowed to take
advantage of their own delay. He submitted that even the rejection of the
approval is for irrelevant and invalid reasons. Considering all these
circumstances, Mr Sinha submitted that this appeal may be dismissed.
9. The rival contentions now fall for determination.
2

( 2026:JHHC:14478-DB )
10. There is no dispute that the school in which the respondent was
promoted is a Minority Educational Institution.
11. The Promotion Committee recommended the respondent for promotion
vide its decision dated 31.07.2017. Based upon such recommendation, the
respondent was promoted to the post of Principal of the Minority Educational
Institution soon thereafter.
12. On 17.01.2018, the Government Educational Authorities were
informed of such promotion and approval was sought. Since no decision was
communicated, reminders were sent on 03.07.2018 and 20.12.2021. This was
even though on 31.12.2019, the respondent retired on attaining the age of
superannuation after having worked in the promotional post as Principal.
13. Finally, by communication dated 07.11.2022, the Education
Authorities declined to consider granting approval to the respondent's
promotion on the sole ground that the respondent had already retired on
31.12.2019.
14. The impugned decision / order dated 07.11.2022 is quite cryptic and
vitiated by non-application of mind. The fact that the respondent had retired
was not particularly relevant, given that the Authorities themselves delayed
considering the proposal for approval, which was sent well within time, when
the respondent was serving in the promoted post of Principal at the Minority
Educational Institution.
15. Despite reminders, no decision was taken by the Authorities. The
authorities cannot take advantage of their own delay and refuse to even
consider the respondent's case for approval.
3

( 2026:JHHC:14478-DB )
16. This is not a case where the Authorities have declined approval on the
grounds that the respondent did not fulfil the essential educational
qualifications or experience necessary for promotion to the post of Principal.
This is also not a case where the Authorities have alleged any breach of any
Rule or Statute, based upon which no promotion could have been granted to
the respondent. This is also not a case of any allegation of a breach of the
seniority principle, if the same were indeed applicable. On the mere ground
that the respondent had already retired, the Authorities could not have refused
to consider the respondent's case for approval.
17. The learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and the law
of the subject. The decision promotes substantial justice, as the respondent has
already retired at the age of superannuation, with effect from 31.12.2019. The
record shows that between 31.07.2017 and 31.12.2019, the respondent has
actually worked in the promotional post as Principal of a Minority Educational
Institution. In the absence of any factors to indicate that the respondent’s
promotion was legally infirm, no purpose would be served by remanding the
matter. No such contention was also raised on behalf of the appellant. The
only contention raised and pressed was that there was no obligation to grant
an approval, or even to consider the proposal to grant an approval, after the
respondent had retired from service.
18. Upon cumulative consideration of all the above circumstances, we
cannot fault the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without any order for cost.
19. If the consequential benefits have not been paid to the respondent to
date, then they must be paid within two months from today. If there is any
4

( 2026:JHHC:14478-DB )
difficulty in payment, the amounts can be deposited in this Court, after giving
due intimation to the learned counsel for the respondent. Upon deposit, the
respondent would be at liberty to withdraw the same by providing her identity
and bank details. The Registry should transfer the amount directly to the
respondent’s bank account.
20. The appeal is dismissed with the above direction and without any order
for costs.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
May 12, 2026
Ranjeet / R.Kr.
NAFR
Uploaded on 13.05.2026

5