Arvind Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4466 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

               W. P. (S) No. 5875 of 2011

   Arvind Kumar Singh, Son of Late Brij Nandan Singh, resident of
   Govt. Qr. No. C-20, Ratu Road, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, P.O. G.P.O.,
   Ranchi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand and posted as Assistant,
   Personnel Administrative Returns and Rajbhasha Department,
   Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi,
   Jharkhand                               ...     ...      Petitioner
                         Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Project
   Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
   Rajbhasa Department, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
   District Ranchi
3. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
   Rajbhasa Department, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa,
   District Ranchi
4. Ved Ratna Mohan, Sect. Joint Cadre Assistant (Gr No. 671)
5. Omprakash Tiwari, Transport Department (Gr No. 672)
6. Kaushal Kishore Jha, Urban Development Department (Gr No.
   673)
7. Sudesh Kumar Verma, Finance Department (Gr No. 674)
8. Baiju Prasad, Rural Development Department (Gr No. 675)
9. Manoj Kumar, Law Department (Gr No. 676)
10.Satyendra Kumar Saha, Water Resource Department (Gr No. 677)

11.Arvind Kumar Singh, Water Resource Department (Gr No. 678)
12.Raghvendra Jha, Finance Department (Gr No. 679)
13.Anuj Kumar Pandey, Staff Selection Commotion (Gr No. 680)
  (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
14.Sudhir Kumar Jha, Law Department, (Gr No 681) (Deleted vide
  order dt. 12.04.2022)
15.Anandmay Banerji, Food Supply Department (Gr No 682)
16.Vimala Nand Mishra, Commissioner Office Dumka (Gr No 683)
17.Pramod Kumar, Home Department (Gr No 684)
18.Sanjay Kumar Sah, Urban Development Department (Gr No 685)
19.Vishnukant Rai, Finance Department (Gr No 686)
20.Dhruw Prasad, Rural Development Department (Gr No 687)
21.Devanand Choudhary, D.G.P. Office (Gr No 688) (Deleted vide
  order dt. 12.04.2022)
22.Suman Kumar Shahi, Agriculture Department (Gr No 689)
23.Udaykant Singh, Commissioner Office Dumka (Gr No 690)
24.Ranjeet Kumar, Health Department (Gr No 691)
25.Akhilesh Kumar, Industries Department (Gr No 692)
26.Madhukant Tripathi, Revenue Department (Gr No 693)
27.Baidyanath Pandey, Cabinet Coordination Dept. (Gr No 694)
28.Manoj Kumar Jha, Science & Technology Department (Gr No
   695)
29.Vijay Kumar Bhagat, Forest & Environment Department (Gr No
   696)
                                2




30. Raj Kumar, Excise Department (Gr No 697)
31.Amar Kumar Singh, Advocate General Office (Gr No 698)
32.Manoj Kumar Pathak, Mince & Geology Department (Gr No 699)
33.Braj Madhab, Advocate General Office (Gr No 700)
34.Anup Kumar, Board of Revenue (Gr No 701)
35.Rajesh Ranjan, Revenue & Land Reform Department (Gr No 702)
36.Ajay Kumar Singh, Personnel Department (Gr No 703)
37.Vikash Kumar, Information Technology Department (Gr No 704)
38.Vishwanath Sinha, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department (Gr
   No 705)
39.Lal Hemant Nath Shahdeb, Urban Development Department (Gr
   No 706)
40.Rajendra Choudhary, Rural Works Department (Gr No 707)
41.Md Vashir Ahmad, Revenue Land Reform Department (Gr No
   708)
42.Ashwini Kumar Lal Das, Finance Department (Gr No 709)
43.Manoj Kumar, Revenue & Land Reform Department (Gr No 710)
44.Krishna Kumar, Forest & Land Reform Department (Gr No 711)
45.Rajivb Ranjan Tiwari, C.M. Secretariat (Gr No 712)
46.Bipin Kumar, Forest & Environment Department (Gr No 713)
47.Rajib Kumar, Tourism Department (Gr No 714)
48.Sushil Kumar, Health Department (Gr No 715)
49.Madan Mohan Jha, Commissioner Office Dumka (Gr No 716)
50.Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Industries Department (Gr No 717)
51.Arun Kumar Sinha, Welfare Department (Gr No 718)
52.Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Personnel Department (Gr No 719)
53.Sunil Kumar Choudhary, State Election Commission (Gr No 720)
54.Vibhash Chandra Singh, Road Construction Department (Gr No
   721)
55.Vidya Bhushan Karn, Commissioner Office Ranchi (Gr No 722)
56.Dharmvir Raman, Home Department (Gr No 723)
57.Ajay Kumar Jha, Personnel Department (Gr No 724)
58.Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Jharkhand State Information Commission
   (Gr No 725)
59.Sunil Kumar Singh, Read Construction Department (Gr No 726)
  (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
60.Yogesh Kumar Singh, Water Resource Department (Gr No 727)
61.Anil Kumar, Road Construction Department (Gr No 728) (Deleted
  vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
62.Ajay Kumar Rai, Finance Department (Gr No 729)
63.Ashok Kumar, Art Culture & Sports Department (Gr No 730)
64.Gulam Sarwar, Social Welfare Department (Gr No 731)
65.Manoj Kumar Jha, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department (Gr
   No 732)
66.Shivpujan Prasad, Personnel Department (Gr No 733)
67.Rajkumar Shrivastav, Water Resource Department (Gr No 734)
68.Sunil Kumar, Registration Department (Gr No 735)
69.Rajesh Kumar, Home Department (Gr No 736)
70.Shiv Kumar Kedia, Water Resource Department (Gr No 737)
                               3




71.Radhika Raman, Advocate General Office (Gr No 738)
72.Sanjay Kumar Jha, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department (Gr
   No 739)
73.Amresh Kumar, Building Construction Department (Gr No 740)
74.Sudhir Kumar, Human Resource Development Department (Gr No
   741)
75. Raj Kishor Prasad, Chauhan Revenue & Land Reform Department
   (Gr No 742)
76.Ganesh Kumar, Rural Works Department (Gr No 743)
77.Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Water Resource Department (Gr No 744)
78.Ajit Kumar Singh, Home Department (Gr No 745)
79.Prabhunath Sharma, Finance Department (Gr No 746)
80.Suneet Kumar, Office of Tribal Welfare Commissioner (Gr No
   747)
81.Satyanarayan Sahu, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries 132
   Department (Or No 748) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
82.Mithilesh Pathak, Housing Department (Gr No 749)
83.Awadesh Kumar Jaiswal, Rural Development Department (Gr No
   750)
84.Arun Kumar, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department (Gr No
   751)
85.Sarojini Kumari Singh, Personnel Department (Gr No 752)
86.Jitendra Bahadur Singh, Personnel Department (Gr No 753)
87.Sunil Kumar Jha, Rural Development Department (Gr No 754)
88.Sanjay Prasad Srivastav, Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department
   (Gr No 755)
89.Rakesh Kumar Choudhary, Cabinet Secretariat (Gr No 756)
90.Vishwavnath Jha, Rural Works Department (Gr No 757)
91.Bijay Kumar Singh, Water Resource Department (Gr No 758)
92.Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Home Department (Gr No 759)
93.Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Revenue & Land Reform Department (Gr
   No. 760) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
94.Shiv Kishor Mishra, Personnel Department on deputation to
   Governor Sect. (Gr No 761)
95.Kailash Prasad, Human Resource Development Department (Gr
   No 762)
96.Anand Kumar Sinha, Building Construction Department (Gr No
   763)
97.Thakur Gauri Shankar Sharma, Finance Department, (Gr No. 764)
  (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
98. Harendra Kumar, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department (Gr
   No. 765)
99.Manoj Kumar, Home Department (Gr No 766)
100. Sanjay Kumar, Registration Department (Gr No 767)
101. Dilip Kumar Sah, Water Resource Department (Gr No. 768)
102. Rakesh Chan, Home Department (Gr No 769)
103. Avinash Chandra Thakur, Drinking Water & Sanitation
   Department (Gr No 770)
                                4




104. Kapil Dev Pandit, Finance Department (Gr No 771)
105. Mitt Ranju Kumar, Office of Director General of Police (Gr No
   772)
106. Gopi Krishna Bablu, Revenue & Land Reform Department (Gr
   No 773)
107. Chandra Bhushan, Finance Department (Gr No 774)
108. Ravindra Ranjan, Personnel Department (Gr No 775)
109. Chandra Prakash Pandey, Cabinet Secretariat Department (Gr
   No. 776) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
110. Maniji Singh, D.G.P. Office (Gr No 777) (Deleted vide order dt.
   12.04.2022)
111. Manikant Thakur, Labour Employment & Training Department
   (Gr No 778) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
112. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Science & Technology Department
   (Gr No 779) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
113. Vijay Kumar, DIG Office (Gr No 780)
114. Ranjan Kumar, Revenue & Land Reform Department (Gr No
   781)
115. Dilip Kumar Vishwas, Personnel Department (Gr No 782)
116. Prem Kumar Rai, DGP Office (Gr No 783)
117. Durga Nand Jha, Road Construction Department (Gr No 784)
   (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
118. Devendra Kumar, Human Resource Development Department
   (Gr No 785)
119. Dev Ranjan Singh, Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department
   (Gr No 786)
120. Arun Prakash Singh, Office of Chief Election Officer (Gr No
   787)
121. Navaneet Kumar, Information & Public Relation Department
   (Gr No 788)
122. Ajay Kumar Singh, Human Resource Department (Gr No 789)
123. Vinay Kumar Burnwal, Road Construction Department (Gr No
   790)
124. Arvind Kumar, Water Resource Department (Gr No 791)
125. Jitendra Prasad Pandey, JPSC (Gr No 792)
126. Arvind Kumar, Cabinet Secretariat & Coordination Department
   (Gr No 793)
127. Ajay Kumar Singh, Science & Technology Department (Gr No
   794)
128. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Water Resource Department (Gr No 795)
129. Ranjiv Kumar Choudhary, DGP Office (Gr No 796)
130. Niraj Kumar Singh, Finance Department (Gr No 797)
131. Santosh Kumar Chaubey, Co-Operative Department (Gr No
   798)
132. Pankaj Kumar, Human Resource Department (Gr No 799)
133. Shivji Verma, Personnel Department (Gr No 800)
134. Lalit Kumar, Personnel Department (Gr No 801)
135. Surendra Kumar, Suman Rural Development Department (Gr
   No 802)
                           5




136. Upendra Kumar Sinha, Human Resource Development
   Department (Gr No 803)
137. Dhanesh Kumar, Law Department (Gr No 804)
138. Amresh Kumar Choudhary, Finance Department (Gr No 805)
139. Lalo Prasad Kushwaha, Advocate General Office (Gr No 806)
140. Birendra Kumar, Finance Department (Gr No 807)
141. Kedar Prasad, Finance Commercial Taxes Department (Gr No
   808) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
142. Chandrashekhar Prasad, Rural Development Department (Gr
   No 809)
143. Gajeshwar Mahto, Department of Food Supply &
   Consumer Affairs (Gr No 810) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
144. Chandrashekhar Gupta, Finance Department (Gr No 811)
145. Manoj Kumar, Home Department (Gr No 812)
146. Manoj Kumar Singh, Forest & Environment Department (Gr
   No 813)
147. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, DGP Office (Gr No 814)
148. Gopal Ji, State Information Commission (Gr No 815)
149. Shambhu Kumar Singh, Rural Development Department (Gr
   No 816)
150. Vinod Kumar, Rural Development Department (Gr No 817)
151. Shiv Shankar Prasad Sinha, Personnel Department (Gr No 818)
152. Manoj Kumar Bhagat, Energy Department (On deputation in
   SSC) (Gr No 819)
153. Sikandar Singh, Welfare Department (Gr No 820)
154. Bhim Ravidas, Cabinet Secretariat & Co-ordination Department
   (Gr No 821)
155. Suresh Choudhary, Institutional Finance Department (Gr No
   822)
156. Sunil Kumar, Road Construction Department (Gr No 823)
157. Ranjeet Kumar, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department (Gr
   No 824)
158. Raghunandan Sah, Urban Development Department (Gr No
   825) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
159. Dharmraj Mahato, Cabinet Co-ordination Department (Gr No
   826)
160. Vinod Kumar Saha, Animal Husbandry Department (Gr No
   827)
161. Brijlala Prasad, DGP Office (Gr No 828)
162. Md. Raquib Anwar, Building Construction Department (Gr No
   829)
163. Ajay Prasad Sah, Labour Employment & Training Department
   (Gr No 830) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
164. Tapeshwar Yadav, Advocate General Office (Gr No 831)
165. Ram Murti Singh, Board of Revenue (Gr No 832)
166. Upendra Kumar Singh, Revenue & Land Reform Department
   (Gr No. 833)
                               6




167. Raghuvansh Prasad, Agriculture & Cane Development
   Department (Gr No. 834)
168. Sunil Kumar Poddar, Information & Technology Department
   (Gr No 835)
169. Ras Bihari Prasad, Office of North Chhotanagpur
   Commissioner (Gr No 836)
170. Lalan Kumar Das, Revenue & Land Reform Department (Gr
   No 837)
171. Shivmangal Singh, Finance Commercial Taxes Department (Gr
   No 838)
172. Naresh Prasad Kewat, Food Public Distribution Department (Gr
   No 839)
173. Vinod Kumar Banke, Building Construction Department (Gr
   No 840)
174. Dayanand Prasad, Home Department (Gr No 841)
175. Gharshobhit Pandit, Law Department (Gr No 842)
176. Subodh Kumar, Rural Development Department (Gr No 843)
177. Rishi Raj, Welfare Department (Gr No 844)
178. Vijay Narayan, Personal Department (Gr No 845)
179. Chandra Kanta Singh, Water Resource Department (Gr No 846)
  (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
180.   Nag Narayan Prasad, Home (Jail) Department (Gr No 847)
181.   Sanjay Kumar Rajak, Home Department (Gr No 848)
182.   Arshal Jamal, Road Construction Department (Gr No 849)
183.   Sanjay Kumar, Animal Husbandry Department (Gr No 850)
184.   Prabhat Kumar Ranjan, DGP Office (Gr No 851)
185.   Narendra Thakur, Advocate General Office (Gr No 852)
186.   Raj Kumar Mandal, Water Resource Department, (Gr No 853)
  (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
187. Phulendra Prasad Sharma, Drinking Water & Sanitation
   Department (Gr No 854)
188. Umashankar Prasad Pal, Finance Department (Gr No 855)
189. Sanjay Kumar, Finance Commercial Taxes Department (Gr No
   856)
190. Arun Kumar, Road Construction Department (Gr No 857)
191. Kamal Kishor Patel, Home Department (Gr No 858)
192. Shivshankar Prasad Singh, Rural Development Department (Gr
   No 859)
193. Manju Kumari, Home (jail) Department (Gr No 860)
194. Md. Mazhar Hussain, Welfare Department (Gr No 861)
195. Chandra Bhushan Kumar, Health Department (Gr No 862)
                                7




196. Dayanand Kumar, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department
   (Gr No 863)
197. Dhirajan Prasad Sharma, Finance Department, (Gr No 864)
198. Kiran Kumari, Urban Development Department (Gr No 865)
199. Devshankar Das, Directorate of Panchayati Raj (Gr No 866)
200. Birendra Prasad, Home (Jail) Department (Gr No 867) (Deleted
  vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
201. Shivnath Rai, Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Department (Gr
   No 868) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
202. Santosh Kuamr, Human Resource Development Department
   (Gr No 869)
203. Arvind Kumar Thakur, Home Department (Gr No 870)
204. Anil Kumar Sharma, Tourism Department (Gr No 871)
205. Ashok Kumar Singh, Personnel Administrative Reforms
   Department (Gr No 872)
206. Irshad Alam, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department (Gr No
   873)
207. Gagan Prasad, Finance Commercial Taxes Department (Gr No
   874) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
208. Md. Shoib Ansari, State Commission for Backward Classes
   (Gr No 875)
209. Ashok Kumar, Agriculture & Cane Development Department
   (Gr No 876)
210. Mithilesh Kumar Niraj, Home Department (Gr No 877)
211. Md. Shahjad Ahmad, Welfare (Minorities) Department (Gr No
   878)
212. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Building Construction Department (Gr
   No 879)
213. Md. Tahir Anwar, DGP Office (Gr No 880)
214. Janardan Mahto, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department (Gr
   No 881)
215. Shiv Kumar Choudhary, Finance Commercial Taxes
   Department (Gr No 882)
216. Jago Choudhary, Labor Employment & Training Department
   (Gr No 883)
217. Vijay Kumar Toppo, Forest & Environment Department (Gr No
   884)
218. Uday Shankar, Water Resource Department (Gr No 885)
  (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
219. Om Prakash, Building Construction Department (Gr No 886)
220. Janardan Paswan, Personnel Department (Gr No 887)
221. Suresh Rajak, Transport Department (Gr No 888)
                                8




222. Surendra Das, Rural Works Department (Gr No 889) (Deleted
  vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
223. Pradeep Kumar Paswan, Finance Department (Gr No 890)
224. Anil Kumar, DGP Office (Gr No 891)
225. Binod Kumar Ram, Personnel Department (Gr No 892)
226. Bikram Ram, Personnel Department (Gr No 893)
227. Lakhan Ram Nayak, Home Department (Gr No 894)
228. Keshwar Ram, Commissioner Office Palamau, Medininagar
   (Gr No 895) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
229. Vijay Kumar, State Election Commissioner (Gr No 896)
230. Uchit Kumar Pal, Home Department (Gr No 897)
231. Lalit Paswan, Cabinet Vigilance Department (Gr No 898)
232. Roshan Oraon, Cm Secretariat (Gr No 899) (Deleted vide order
  dt. 12.04.2022)
233. Sahdev Paswan, Urban Development Department (Gr No 900)
234. Birendra Kumar Ram, Building Construction Department (Gr
   No 901)
235. Suresh Kumar Das, Road Construction Department (Gr No
   902)
236. Devanand Ram, Commissioner Office Palamau, Medininagar
   (Gr No 903) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
237. Ashok Kuamr Rajak, Building Construction Department (Gr
   No 904) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
238. Upendra Ram, Human Resource Development Department (Gr
   No 905)
239. Rajesh Kuamr, Planning & Development Department (Gr No
   906)
240. Maheshwar Paswan, Finance Department On Deputation To
   J.P.S.C. (Gr No 907) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
241. Nawal Kishor Rai, Urban Development Department (Gr No
   908) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
242. Sunil Kumar, Labor Employment & Training Department (Gr
   No 909)
243. Mannu Choudhary, Personnel Department (Gr No 910)
244. Pradeep Kumar, Drinking Water & Sanitation Department (Gr
   No 911)
245. Anand Surin, Social Welfare Department (Gr No 912) (Deleted
  vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
246.   Albert Das, Agriculture Department (Gr No 913)
247.   Sita Sharan Choudhary, Home Jail Department (Gr No 914)
248.   Vijay Kumar, Home Department (Gr No 915)
249.   Rambali Manjhi, Energy Department (Gr No 916)
250.   Rakesh Ranjan, Urban Development Department (Gr No 917)
                                 9




251. Harendra Kishor Ram, Health Department (Gr No 918)
252. Sudhir Kumar, Road Construction Department (Gr No 919)
253. Prem Lal Mehra, Welfare Department (Gr No 920)
254. Binod Kumar, DGP Office (Gr No 921)
255. Pratap Chandra Kisku, Water Resource Department (Gr No
   922) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
256. Shiv Shankar Hansda, Drinking Water & Sanitation
   Department (Gr No 923)
257. Rajkishor Khakha, State Election Commission (Gr No 924)
258. Prisilla Murmu, Road Construction Department (Gr No 925)
259. Rejyus Barh, Road Construction Department (Gr No 926)
260. Anandit Bage, Office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi
   (Gr No 927) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
261. Sunita Herenj, Office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi
   (Gr No 928)
262. Rita Khalko, Office of Chief Conservator of Forest Ranchi (Gr
   No 929)
263. Binod Ekka, Food & Public Supply (Gr No 930)
264. Anal Pratik Minj, Office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi
   (Gr No 931)
265. Rajesh Bakhala, Water Resource Department (Gr No 932)
266. Rameshwar Leyangi, Human Resource Development
   Department (Gr No 933)
267. Late Anidrayas Topno (Gr No 934) (Deleted vide order dt.
   12.04.2022)
268. Antoni Sanga, Transport Department (Gr No 935)
269. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, Finance Department (Gr No 936)
270. Pranita Khalkho, Health Department (Gr No 937)
271. Pushpanjali Horo, Office of North Chhotanagpur Commssioner
   (Gr No 938) (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
272. Satyajeet Jon Balihar, Social Welfare Department (Gr No 939)
   (Deleted vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
273. Philip Lakra, Office of South Chotanagpur Commissioner,
   Ranchi (Gr No 940)
274. Dena Kisku, Home Jail Department (Gr No 941)
275. Jaysri Toppo, Office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi
   (Gr No 942)
276. Lalima Dadel, Cabinet Co-ordination Department (Gr No 943)
277. Ghanshyam Prasad, Home Guard Office (Gr No 944)
278. Tulsi Prasad, Water Resource Department (Gr NO 945) (Deleted
   vide order dt. 12.04.2022)
279. Surendra Das, Personnel Department (Gr No 946)
280. Rajkishor Kumar, Personnel Department (Gr No 947)
                                       10




      281. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh, Agriculture & Cane Development
         Department (Gr No 948)
      282. Chand Hembram, Rural Development Department (Gr No 949)
      283. Manoj Kumar Madhukar, Water Resource Dept. (Gr No. 950)
      284. Sunil Kumar Mishra, Information Commission (Gr No. 951)
      285. Rajendra Prasad Rajesh, Agriculture Deptt. (Gr No. 952)
      286. Achijitanand divivedi, Cabinet Sectt. (Gr No. 953)
      287. Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Home (Prision) Deptt. (Gr No. 954)
      288. Sudhir Kumar, Finance Deptt. (Gr No 955)
                                           ...        ...       Respondents
                              ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashami, Adv.

                              : Mr. Zaid Imam, Advocate
                              : Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad, Advocate
           For the State      : Mr. Sreenu Garapati, Advocate

20/09.11.2022

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents to rectify the final gradation list of officers and Assistants of Jharkhand Secretariat Service published vide letter no. 3606 dated 01.07.2011 under the signature of Deputy Secretary of the Government especially in respect of the petitioner and place him in between Serial No. 670 and 671 instead of putting him at the last position at Serial No. 956, for which the petitioner is entitled because at Serial No. 670 an Assistant namely Nand Kishore Mishra has been placed who belongs to petitioner's batch of 1985 and thereafter from Sl. No. 671 onward upto Sl. No. 949, Assistants of 1993 batch are placed who are 8 years junior batch wise.

ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents to follow its own Rule namely "SACHIVALAY AUR SANLAGNA KARYALAYON KE SAHAYKON KA SANYUKTA SAMWARG NIYAMAWALI-

1992" (Rule 1992 of Secretariat Assistant Joint Cadre) in which clause 14 provides that inter-se seniority of Assistants is to be determined in accordance with their position in the merit list of successful candidates of the

competitive examination for recruitment of Secretariat Assistant which has been violated in respect of the petitioner so far.

iii. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the petitioner is found entitled and also for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014, which has been decided on 16.06.2022. It has also been submitted that so far no appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment.

Arguments of the petitioner

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is distinguishable on facts as compared to the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014.

5. The learned counsel submits that so far as history of appointment of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has been appointed as Assistant in the Secretariat against the advertisement vide notice No. 11/1985. She submits that the Bihar Public Service Commission (herein after referred to as the 'BPSC') vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) submitted a list of 177 persons with recommendation of 170 suitable candidates for their appointment to the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna, in which the name of the petitioner figured at serial No. 128, but without assigning any reason, the concerned department returned the said letter of recommendation in respect of the petitioner along with three others even when the vacancies were available. She further submits that the Personnel and Administrative Reform Department, Government of Bihar, Patna resubmitted requisition to BPSC asking for recommendation for appointment of the petitioner along with others vide letter No. 9 dated 07.01.1998 (Annexure-2) and in response to such requisition, the BPSC sent recommendation for appointment of the petitioner along with others to the concerned

department vide letter No. 328 dated 26.09.1998 (Annexure-3) and consequently, the petitioner was ultimately appointed vide letter No. 85 dated 10.02.1999.

6. The specific case of the petitioner is that the name of the petitioner was already recommended by the BPSC as back as in the year 1995 and for no fault on the part of the petitioner, the same was returned back and the name was again recommended in the year 1998 and ultimately, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner should be placed in seniority list by treating the date of appointment of the petitioner at least with respect to the date of initial recommendation i.e., 13.09.1995 and the name of the petitioner should be placed just below the various selected candidates out of the merit list relating to advertisement of the year 1985.

7. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no idea as to why the name of the petitioner was returned, although the name was recommended on 13.09.1995. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner had not taken any step pursuant to return of the name.

8. During the course of argument, it also transpired that so far as the recommendation of the name of the petitioner in the year 1995 vide letter dated 13.09.1995 is concerned, the same was the result of various orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5298/1993. It is further not in dispute that as per the letter of appointment issued to the petitioner dated 10.02.1999, there was a specific clause that the appointment will be counted from the date of joining.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of her case, has relied upon the following judgments: -

(i) 2015 (1) ALT 680 (Ramalingeswara Rao and Ors. vs. C & M.C. A.P. Transco and Ors.); Para 15

(ii) (2008) 7 SCC 728 (Balwant Singh Narwal & Ors.

vs. State of Haryana & Ors.); Para 8

(iii) (2019) 12 SCC 798 (Dinesh Kumar Kashyap & Ors. vs. South East Central Railway & Ors.) Para 7

(iv) (2014) 10 SCC 357 (Asis Kumar Samanta vs. State of West Bengal); Para 4 and 5

(v) L.P.A. No. 588 of 2015 (Smt. Harjeet Kaur vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) decided on 12th April, 2016

Arguments of the respondents

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has given a comparative chart to compare the facts of the case of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 and the present writ petition. He submits that the case of the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 was on better footing as compared to the case of the present petitioner, but still the case was dismissed. He submits that the date of appointment of the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 was 10.09.1998 and that of the petitioner was 11.02.1999. The learned counsel submits that although the reason as to why the name of the petitioner was sent back is not reflecting from the records of this case, but the same is reflecting from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 and he refers to paragraph-5 to 12 of the said judgment. He submits that the name of the petitioner for appointment was recommended pursuant to the various orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the petitioner cannot be given any seniority as compared to those persons who were recruited and joined in service in the intervening period prior to date of joining of the petitioner.

11. The learned counsel has also submitted that this Court in W.P. (S) No. 244/2014 has clearly held that the date of entering into the cadre would be the date giving the seniority position. He has referred to paragraph 36(c) at page 20 of W.P. (S) No. 244 o 2014 to submit that the petitioner was not appointed along with those who were

declared successful pursuant to recruitment process initiated in the year 1985, but was appointed pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Patna High Court, though the petitioner's name reflected in the merit list of the recruitment process of advertisement of the year 1985. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2020 2 JCR 194 (Lalan Prasad lal @ Lalan Pd. Lal vs. The State of Jharkhand) and submits that the judgment passed in L.P.A. No 588/2015 has been considered in the said judgment.

Findings of this Court.

12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute with regard to the same set of respondents in the present case, similar matter and issue was subject matter of consideration in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 which has been dismissed on 16.06.2022 by this court.

13. The specific case of the respondents is that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 and on the other hand, as per the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present case is distinguishable on facts as compared to the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014.

14. The distinguishing facts as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed against the advertisement Notice No. 11/1985 and that BPSC vide letter dated 13.09.1995 submitted a list of 177 persons with recommendation of 170 suitable candidates for their appointment and the name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No. 128 but the concerned department without assigning any reason returned the said recommendation in respect of the petitioner along with three others even when vacancies were available. It has been argued that in view of the aforesaid recommendation letter dated 13.09.1995, the petitioner should be placed just below the various selected candidates out of the merit list

relating to advertisement of the year 1985 and the petitioner should not be made to suffer for the fault of the respondents.

15. Upon perusal of the record of this case, when compared to the facts of the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014, this Court finds that the prayer made in both the writ petitions are the same and the private respondents are also the same.

16. This Court further finds that the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 had also participated in the selection process issued pursuant to the Advertisement No. 11/1985 and it was the specific case of the petitioner in the said case that since the petitioner was an appointee of the same recruitment process of the year 1985, though appointment was made vide letter dated 08.09.1998 by virtue of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he was required to be placed immediately after the candidates recruited by virtue of recruitment process of the year 1985 and was required to be placed as the last candidate amongst them in the seniority list.

17. In the present case also, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on similar footings with the only distinguishing feature that the name of the present petitioner was included in the letter of recommendation of BPSC dated 13.09.1995 which was of 177 persons with recommendation of 170 suitable candidates and the name of the petitioner was at Sl. No. 128, but the name was returned for the reasons not known to the petitioner and thereafter the Personal & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna re-submitted requisition to BPSC vide letter dated 7.01.1998 (Annexure-2) and BPSC again recommended the petitioner along with others vide letter dated 26.09.1998 (Annexure-3) and consequently the petitioner was ultimately appointed vide letter dated 10.02.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the name of the petitioner was returned without assigning any reason and therefore the petitioner having been recommended as back as in the year 1995 the said recommendation is required to be given due effect.

18. This Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid difference of facts which is sought to be highlighted by the present petitioner has no bearing on the merits of the case in order to distinguish the case of the petitioner from that of W.P.(S) No. 244 of 2014. This Court is also of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 for the following reasons.

19. This Court finds that there was another case decided by Hon'ble Patna High Court arising out of the recruitment vide advertisement No.11/85 and referred to by the learned counsel for the Respondents reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (Secretariate Assistants Successful Examinees Union versus State of Bihar) which gives the reason as to why the name of the petitioner was sent back in spite of recommendation of BPSC dated 13.09.1995 and under what circumstances the names were again recommended in the year 1998 pursuant to which the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 244 of 2014 was appointed in the year 1998 and the present petitioner was appointed in the year 1999.

20. The sequence of events has been mentioned in the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 at para-No. 29 which has been primarily taken from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 (1) SCC 126. From perusal of judgment reported in 1994 (1) SCC 126 read with judgment reported (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (Secretariate Assistants Successful Examinees Union versus State of Bihar), it is clear that though the advertisement No. 11/85 stated that vacancies upto the year 1985-86 would be filled up, but it did not disclose the exact number of vacancies available for the appointment. The examination was held in November, 1987 and result of the examination was published in July, 1990. The Board then made recommendations in the light of a communication dated 25.8.1987 received from the Joint Secretary in the department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms which gave the breakup of the vacancies in a

tabular form, indicating the total number of vacancies, as then existing to be 357. On the basis of the Board's recommendation 309 candidates were given appointment by the State Government. Candidates in the general category who had secured more than 50% marks in the selection test and whose names were in the select list were empaneled and made to wait in anticipation of release of further vacancies by the State.

21. The aforesaid judgment further reveals that when no further vacancies were released by the State Government, some of those empaneled candidates made a representation before it requesting that all vacancies which had come into existence on the date of publication of the result in July, 1990 should be filled up from the panel prepared on the basis of the selection test held in pursuance of advertisement no.11/85. The State Government turned down the representation by letter dated 08.08.1991 asking the Commission to issue fresh advertisement to hold fresh competitive test for appointment of Secretariat Assistants. At that stage, union of Secretariate Assistants successful examinees filed writ petition being CWJC No. 2912 of 1991 which was allowed vide order dated 11.10.1991 and there was a direction to fill up the vacancies available up to date of publication of the result i.e. July 1990.

22. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. Civil Appeal No. 5298/93 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 08th of October, 1993 reported in 1994(1) SCC 126. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the direction given by the High Court to fill up all vacancies coming into existence till the publication of the result in July, 1990 was not proper and could not be sustained and it however affirmed the High Court's judgment in all other respects that panel would be given effect to for filling up all vacancies which were in existence till December 31, 1988.

23. It has also been recorded in the aforesaid judgments that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while pronouncing the judgment was not apprised of the exact number of vacancies that had come into existence till December 31, 1988. After the Appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, interlocutory applications were filed making a grievance that the State Government was not complying with the order of the Supreme Court and thereafter a direction was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to comply with the order and after that the State complied with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 01.08.1994 interlocutory applications were disposed of. The order dated 01.08.1994 has been quoted in the aforesaid judgment reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (Secretariate Assistants Successful Examinees Union versus State of Bihar). It has further been recorded in the aforesaid judgment that following the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government issued letter dated 10.4.1995 and 21.6.1995 requesting the Commission to recommend names for appointment against 209 vacancies which were in existence till December 31, 1988. Those letters also provided the break-up of the vacancies against different reservation heads as extracted in para 8 of the aforesaid judgment and in response to the government's request, the commission sent its recommendation vide letters dated 13.09.1995 for 172 posts. The said letter dated 13.09.1995 whose background has been mentioned in the aforesaid judgment passed in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (supra) is the Annexure 1 to this writ petition.

24. It has further been recorded in paragraph 11 of the judgment reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905 (supra) that on the basis of the Commission's recommendation 108 candidates were given appointment by the State Government, 43 candidates out of the list of 172 candidates recommended by the Commission failed to turn up for certificate verification despite several reminders sent to them individually and publication of notice in the local leading newspapers

and consequently the State Government, by its letter dated 01.07.1996 returned the recommendation of those candidates to the commission with the request to recommend further names. Thus, the background under which some of the names were returned in spite of their recommendation vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) has been clearly narrated in the aforesaid judgment. It is not the case of the petitioner that he appeared for verification of documents pursuant to the recommendation made vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) and in spite of that his name was returned.

25. It further reveals from the said judgment that the Commission persistently refused to make any further recommendations and maintained that by making recommendation of 172 candidates under letter dated 13.9.1995. It had fully complied with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, not obliged to make any further recommendations notwithstanding the repeated requests of the State Government.

26. With the aforesaid background, two issues were framed by the Patna High Court in Judgment reported in (1998) 1 PLJR 905(supra) . Para 16 of the judgment is quoted hereunder: -

"16. In view of the stand taken by the Commission, two questions arise for consideration by this court.

(i) Whether it is open to the Commission to disregard the requisition and repeated requests made by the State Government to recommend names for appointment?

(ii) Whether the Commission can be said to have fully complied with the direction of the Supreme Court in making recommendation of 172 names (against a requisition for 209) by its letter dated 13.9.1995 and therefore it is no longer obliged to make any further recommendation for filling up vacancies which were admittedly in existence on December 31, 1988?"

27. The aforesaid judgment was pronounced on 17th of March, 1998 and the Commission was directed to make recommendation in response to the requisition made by the State Government vide its letter dated 01.07.1996 and consequently recommendation was made vide letter dated 26th September, 1998 (Annexure-3) and ultimately

the petitioner was appointed vide letter No. 85 dated 10.02.1999 (Annexure-4). Thus, the reason for not appointing many persons including the petitioner out of the list forwarded vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) has been clearly mentioned by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgment. Thus, the argument of the petitioner that for no reason the name of the petitioner was returned in spite of recommendation vide letter dated 13.09.1995 (Annexure-1) is devoid of any merits, hence rejected.

28. Thus, though the petitioner had participated in the selection process of the Advertisement No. 11 of 1985 but was given appointment only by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1994) 1 SCC 124 i.e. Civil Appeal No. 5298 of 1993 which is also reflecting from the orders annexed with the writ petition including the letter of appointment of the petitioner. Thus, the present petitioner was also given appointment pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as was the case of Manoj Kumar Madhukar in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014, therefore there is no material distinction between the case of the petitioner and that of Manoj Kumar Madhukar (supra). This Court is of the considered view that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014 and is accordingly dismissed in terms of judgment dated 16.06.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 244 of 2014.

29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul/Binit