Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Tudu vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others on 8 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.06 of 2017
Sunil Tudu ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... ... ... Respondents
WITH
L.P.A. No.552 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.748 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.872 of 2016,
W.P. (S) No.899 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.912 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.913 of 2016,
W.P. (S) No.914 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.933 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.999 of 2016,
W.P. (S) No.1029 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.1036 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.1069 of
2016, W.P. (S) No.1085 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.1090 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.1091
of 2016, W.P. (S) No.1113 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.1477 of 2016, W.P. (S)
No.2201 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.6667 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.6668 of 2016, W.P.
(S) No.6672 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.6702 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.6853 of 2016,
W.P. (S) No.6939 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.7123 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.7195 of
2016, W.P. (S) No.7383 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.7528 of 2016, W.P. (S) No.118
of 2017, W.P. (S) No.197 of 2017, W.P. (S) No.1567 of 2017, W.P. (S)
No.2397 of 2017, W.P. (S) No.3075 of 2017, W.P. (S) No.4111 of 2017, W.P.
(S) No.4387 of 2017, W.P. (S) No.4790 of 2017, W.P. (S) No.5140 of 2017,
W.P. (S) No.5397 of 2017, W.P. (S) No.6033 of 2017, W.P. (S) No.1246 of
2018, W.P. (S) No.1344 of 2018, W.P. (S) No.1960 of 2018, W.P. (S) No.4003
of 2018, W.P. (S) No.4111 of 2018, W.P. (S) No.5833 of 2018, W.P. (S)
No.5844 of 2018, W.P. (S) No.6660 of 2018, W.P. (S) No.6702 of 2018, W.P.
(S) No.445 of 2019, W.P. (S) No.1492 of 2019, W.P. (S) No.1720 of 2019,
W.P. (S) No.1931 of 2019, W.P. (S) No.1990 of 2019, W.P. (S) No.3413 of
2019, W.P. (S) No.4143 of 2019, W.P. (S) No.961 of 2020, W.P. (S) No.1231
of 2020, W.P. (S) No.267 of 2021, W.P. (S) No.4241 of 2021, W.P.(S) No.4990
of 2021, W.P. (S) No.117 of 2023, W.P. (S) No.96 of 2024, W.P. (S) No.205 of
2024 and W.P. (S) No.430 of 2024.
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Petitioners: M/s. Shresth Gautam, Rajarshi Singh, Yashvardhan,
Kirtivardhan, Ritesh Singh, Indrajit Sinha, Rajesh
Kumar, Anil Kumar Singh, Ritu Kumar, Baleshwar
Yadav, Ajay Kr. Pathak, Rajendra Prasad Gupta,
Abhishek Kumar, Bhola Nath Rajak, Deepankar,
Rakhi Rani, Pankaj Srivastava, Ankit Kumar, Manoj
Kumar Choubey, Madhav Prasad, Abhay Kumar
Mishra, Advocates
For the State: M/s. Jai Prakash (A.A.G.-IA),Vandana Singh (Sr.
S.C.-III), Ashwini Bhushan (A.C. to Sr.S.C.-III),
Mrinal Kanti Roy (G.A.-I), Chandan Tiwari (A.C. to
G.A.-I) Ashok Kumar Yadav (Sr. S.C.-I), Kishore
Kumar Singh (S.C.-V), Sachin Kumar (A.C. to S.C.-
I), Suresh Kumar (S.C.L&C-II), Laxmi Murmu (G.P.-
I), Amrita Banerjee (A.C. to G.P.-I), Piyush Chitresh
(A.C. to A.G.), Aman Kumar (A.C. to G.P.-I) Rahul
Kumar Singh (A.C. to S.C.-I), Devesh Krishna
(S.C.Mines)-III), Prabhat Kumar (S.C.-II), Ruby
Yadav (A.C. to S.C.-IV), Ruby Yadav (A.C. to S.C.-
VII), Gaurav Raj (A.C. to A.A.G.-II), L.G.R. Nath
Shahdeo (A.C. to S.C.-IV), Suraj Prakash (A.C. to
S.C.-VIII), Zaid Imam (A.C. to S.C.-VIII), Anuj
Kumar Trivedi (A.C. to S.C.-VIII), Nehru Mahto
(A.C. to G.P.-IV), Om Prakash Tiwari (G.P.-III),
Vineet Prakash (AC to SC-IV), Navneet Toppo (A.C.
to G.P.-I), Purnendu Sharan (A.C. to S.C.-VII),
Awanish Shekhar, (A.C. to A.A.G.-I), Mihir Kunal
Ekka (A.C. to S.C.-I), Ashish Kumar, Faisal Allam
(A.C. to S.C. Mines-III) Sharabhil Ahmed (A.C. to
S.C.Mines-I), Shivam Anand Pathak (A.C. to S.C.-
III), Jayant Franklin Toppo (G.A.-V), Ajit Kumar,
Neil Abhijit Toppo (A.C. to G.A.-V)
For the JSSC: M/s. Tejo Mistri, Sanjoy Piprawall, Rakesh Ranjan,
Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Prabhat Kumar, Ayushri,
Advocates
For the Pvt. Resps: M/s. Ajit Kumar (Sr. Advocate), Aprajita Bhardwaj,
Akriti Shree, Abhishek Gautam, Sushant Kumar,
Prince Kumar, Kushal Kumar, Neha Bhardwaj, Sneha
Kumari, Advocates
For the Intervener: Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
---------
Order No.24/Dated: 8th February 2024
Mr. Shresth Gautam, the learned counsel who appears for the
petitioners in W.P. (S) Nos. 961/2020, 1231/2020, 267/2021 and W.P. (S)
No.117/2023 raised manifold submissions, viz., (i) the Rules framed under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India can only be a transitory
provision which cannot supersede or supplant the statutory rules framed in
exercise of the powers under Sections 7, 12 and 46 of the Police Act, (ii) the
Rules of 2014 framed by the State of Jharkhand is without any authority of law
or at least cannot operate in contravention to the field occupied by the
provisions under the Jharkhand Police Manual in so far as appointment of the
police constables is concerned. The learned counsel has further submitted that a
particular interpretation which has been put to the provisions in the Jharkhand
Police Manual over sufficiently long period of time should be held binding and
while so, the provisions under the Jharkhand Police Manual have attained
statutory force.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the aforementioned cases
has referred to the following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court:-
(i) D.R. Yadav v. R.K. Singh, (2003) 7 SCC 110
(ii) A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka, (1998) 3 SCC 495
(iii) Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127
(iv) Union of India v. Somasundaram Vishwanath, (1989) 1 SCC 175
(v) Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, (2001) 4 SCC 309
(vi) Sandeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 SCC OnLine SC
(vii) Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189
(viii) Commr. Of Police v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685
(ix) Bhinka v. Charan Singh, 1959 Superannuation (2) SCR 798
(x) Union of India v. ABN Amro Bank, (2013) 16 SCC 490
(xi) Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Assn. Ltd., (1979)
4 SCC 565
(xii) Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2020 SCC OnLine SC
(xiii) Govt. of A.P. v. G. Jaya Prasad Rao, (2007) 11 SC 528
(xiv) GM, South Central Railway v. A.V.R. Sidhantti, (1974) 4 SCC 335
(xv) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar, (2019) 20 sCC 17
(xvi) Manoj Manu v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 171
(xvii) Kashi Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 2019 Lab IC 1761
3. Finally, the learned counsel has referred to the Full Bench
Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashi Nath Singh v. State of
Bihar & Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 411 and endeavoured to distinguish the
same on the ground that the provisions under Section 46 of the Police Act were
not taken note of in the Full Bench Judgment.
4. For further argument, on behalf of the petitioners and the reply by
the respondents/interveners, post these matters on 12th February 2024 as part-
heard.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)
Manoj/- (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
