Jharkhand High Court
WPC/6840/2024 of LIPIKA SINGH Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPARTMENT, on 28 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 6840 of 2024 ---- Lipika Singh, Age: 39 year, W/o:- Devashis Roy, D/o: Indrajit Singh, R/o- Village: Ambagan, P.O and P.S: Mihijam, Distt: Jamtara (Jharkhand) .......Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the
( 2026:JHHC:29351 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P(S). No. 6840 of 2024
----
Lipika Singh, Age: 39 year, W/o:- Devashis Roy, D/o: Indrajit Singh, R/o- Village: Ambagan, P.O and P.S: Mihijam, Distt: Jamtara (Jharkhand)
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, Dhurwa, PO & PS- Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Telephone Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi-4, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
3. District Education Officer, Naya Para, P.O +P.S + Distt:-Dumka, (Jharkhand)
.....Respondent(s)
--- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--- For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, AC to GA-IV
--- 03/ Dated: 28.09.2026
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider and accept the request of the petitioner for her transfer from Dumka to Jamtara.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a request transfer was made by the petitioner when she was on family way, however, since no order was passed immediately; at present the petitioner is having a very small child and had again made a request transfer application, but the same was rejected.
4. Ld. Counsel further draws the attention of the Court towards Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit especially page-30 at Sl. No. 29, wherein the ground for rejecting the request transfer of the petitioner has been indicated as “no relevant documents submitted”.
( 2026:JHHC:29351 )
5. After referring that ground in page-30 to the counter-affidavit, Ld. Counsel fairly submits that the petitioner may be permitted to again approach the concerned respondent for redressal of her grievance for request transfer.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents though relied upon the counter- affidavit but on the aforesaid submission he does not have much objection.
7. Having regard to the above, the instant application stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the 2nd Respondent by filing a fresh application for request transfer after annexing all the relevant documents which are required to be considered by the authorities in the case of request transfer.
8. The moment the 2nd Respondent will receive such representation along with relevant documents, he shall take a decision on the request transfer of the petitioner in accordance with law and applicable guidelines, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of such application/representation and if the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, necessary consequential order be issued within a further period of 2 weeks.
9. It goes without saying that the earlier rejection of the petitioner shall not come in way in taking fresh decision by the concerned respondents.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) 28.09.2026 Abha/-