Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 23 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:12079-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 32 of 2019
Amit Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Late Umesh Prasad Srivastava,
resident of near Ashok Timber, Main Road, Jodhadih More, P.O. Chas,
P.S. Chas, Town & District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary Road Construction
Department, Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government
of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi.
3. The Chief Engineer (Traffic), Road Construction Department, at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road
Circle, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh.
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road
Circle, Government of Jharkhand, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District -
Bokaro. ... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Md. Mohan Kumar Dubey, A.C. to A.G.
---------
04/Dated: 23.04.2025
M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
1. This review application is filed seeking review of the judgment dt.
08.01.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 607 of 2017. The applicant in the review
application had been engaged as a Correspondence Clerk in the Road
Construction Department on compassionate grounds on the death of his
father while in service. His engagement commenced in 2002 as a
Correspondence Clerk.
-1 of 4-
2025:JHHC:12079-DB
2. On 24.02.2009 he was posted as Accounts Clerk having the same
scale of pay. On 31.12.2009 the order posting the petitioner as Accounts
Clerk was cancelled and he was posted back as Correspondence Clerk on
the ground that the petitioner's posting as Accounts Clerk was irregular and
not in conformity with the rules.
3. The review petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.(S) No. 460
of 2010. On 02.08.2017 the said Writ Petition was allowed by the learned
Single Judge on the pretext that the rules do not permit for review of an
order by the same authority. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the
privy council in R.T. Rangachari Vs. Secretary of State for India in
Council, 1937 0 AIR (PC) 27 wherein the privy council is said to have held
that in a case in which after Government Officials duly competent and duly
authorized in that behalf have arrived honestly to one decision, their
successors in office, after the decision has been acted upon and is in
effective operation, cannot reconsider the matter and arrive at a different
decision.
4. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the
State Government before a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 607 of 2017. The
Division Bench disagreed with the view expressed by the learned Single
Judge, allowed the appeal and dismissed the Writ Petition. The Division
Bench had agreed with the contention of the State that there cannot be a
change of cadre of a person appointed on compassionate ground and also
took note of the fact that the officer, who directed the initial change of
cadre, was issued a show cause notice. The Division Bench held that no
legal right was vested in the petitioner on the basis of which his reversion
could be challenged invoking the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the
-2 of 4-
2025:JHHC:12079-DB
High Court; an employee does not have any vested legal right barring that
specified in the applicable rules to hold onto a particular post in a particular
cadre; no prejudice was demonstrated by the reversion of the writ petitioner
to the original post; and the decision of the administrative authority, in the
absence of any adverse civil consequence, should not be interfered with by
the Writ Court.
5. Assailing the same, this review petition is filed.
6. Counsel for the review petitioner placed reliance on Rule 56 of the
Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 which states as under:
"56. (a) The State Government may transfer a Government
servant from one post to another:
Provided that, except :-
(1) on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, or
(2) on his written request,
a Government servant shall not be transferred substantively
to, or except in a case covered by Rule 103 appointed to officiate in
a post carrying less pay than the pay of the permanent post on which
he holds a lien, or would hold a lien, had his lien not been
suspended under Rule 70.
(b) Nothing contained in clause (a) of this rule or in Rule 28,
shall operate to prevent the re-transfer of a Government servant to
the post on which he would hold a lien, has it not been suspended in
accordance with the provisions of Clause (a) of Rule 70."
7. He contended that since the petitioner was transferred from the post
of Correspondence Clerk to the post of Accounts Clerk on his written
request, the same cannot be undone because the Rule does not permit it.
8. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that the cadre of
Correspondence Clerk and the cadre of Accounts Clerk are different and
channels of promotion from both these posts are different. The post of
-3 of 4-
2025:JHHC:12079-DB
Accounts Clerk is not in the channel of promotion from the post of
Correspondence Clerk. When the Rule did not permit the posting of the
petitioner, who was appointed as a Correspondence Clerk, as an Accounts
Clerk, it cannot be said that the respondents had committed any error in
undoing the mistake which they had done by posting the petitioner as an
Accounts Clerk, when his appointment was that of a Correspondence
Clerk.
9. Rule 56 quoted by the review petitioner's counsel, in our opinion,
applies only to a case of transfer from one post to another post in the same
cadre. The word 'transfer' used in Rule 56 cannot be interpreted as
permitting posting of a person appointed to post A for posting him in a
different cadre in post B.
10. The view that an administrative decision cannot be reconsidered later
and undone is no longer the correct view and even policy decisions can be
undone. If the decision taken for posting the petitioner as an Accounts
Clerk, when he was appointed only as a Correspondence Clerk, is not
permitted by the Rules, merely because the decision at that time was taken
honestly, nothing prevents the successors to undo the mistake. Therefore,
we do not find any error in the judgment of the Division Bench warranting
interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction.
11. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. Pending
Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
APK/VK
-4 of 4-
