Jharkhand High Court
Kanhaee Prasad vs Pradeep Kumar on 28 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 198 of 2024
Kanhaee Prasad, aged about 57 years, son of Sri Sitaram
Sao, resident of Village-Dumri, Dakghar Chechadhi, P.O. and
P.S. Obra, District-Aurangabad (Bihar), at present working
and posted as Executive Engineer, Building Construction
Corporation, Government of Jharkhand, Dhanbad, P.O. and
P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
Appellant.
Versus
1. Pradeep Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Mangardeo
Oraon, resident of village and P.O.- Chiyanki, P.S.
Daltonganj, District-Palamau, PIN 822102 Jharkhand.
2. Ram Badan Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Sudin
Prasad Singh, resident of Jay Prakash nagar, Bariyatu Road,
Near Saint Judes, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi,
834009 (Jharkhand). ... Respondents/ Writ petitioners.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004.
4. The Development Commissioner, Government of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O and PS Doranda, Ranchi-
834002.
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O and P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004.
6. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi-
834004.
7. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O and P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004
8. Vinay Kumar, Superintending Engineer, presently posted
at Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation
(JUIDCO) Ranchi under Urban Development & Housing
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi-834001.
9. Devashish Lehri, Superintending Engineer, presently
posted at Advance Planning Circle, Road Construciton
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi-834002.
-1-
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
11. Abhinendra Kumar, Superintending Engineer presently
posted at Urban Development and Housing Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi 834001.
14. Kundal Kumar, Superintending Engineer, presently
posted at Field Survey Division, Advance Planning, Road
Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi-834002.
15. Jaikant Ram, Superintending Engineer, presently posted
at Road Construction Department, National Highway Circle,
Ranchi-834002.
16. Sunil Kumar Rajak, Superintending Engineer, presently
posted as Member (Technical), State Highways Authority of
Jharkhand (SHAJ) Deen Dayal nagar, Booty Road, Ranchi-
834008.
17. Vijay Kumar Das, Superintending Engineer, presently
posted under Rural Works Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi-
834004.
18. Kumar Krishnanand Das, Superintending Engineer,
presently posted under building Construction Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi-834004.
PERFORMA RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
For the Res. 1 & 2 : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Yash Singh, Advocate
Mr. I. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG
For the Res. 8,9, 11 and 14-18:
: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
--------
th
Order No. 12 : Dated 28 April, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
Prayer:
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
1. The instant appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent, is directed against order dated 02.09.2024 passed in
W.P. (S) No. 3495 of 2024, which was further extended vide
order dated 18.10.2024, by which, the ad interim stay has
been passed to the effect that no further promotion shall be
given to any of the employees till the next date of hearing.
2. The background of the filing of the writ petition on
behalf of writ petitioners, who are respondent nos. 1 and 2
herein, is the issuance of Resolution No. 933(S) dated
07.03.2022 issued by the Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder by
taking reference of order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016
[Ashok Kumar Roy & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] with
W.P. (S) No. 2984 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 3031 of 2016, the
promotion has been decided to be granted on the basis of
Bihar Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 1939 [in
short 'Rules, 1939'].
3. The ground has been taken on behalf of writ petitioners-
respondent nos. 1 and 2 that while coming out with the
Resolution No. 933(S) dated 07.03.2022, the same has been
passed without taking into consideration the direction passed
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court particularly the order
dated 17.08.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016 [Ashok
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
Kumar Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] with W.P.
(S) No. 2984 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 3031 of 2016, whereby
and whereunder the Co-ordinate Division Bench, while taking
into consideration the issue of promotion from the post of
Assistant Engineer [Diploma Holder] to that of the Executive
Engineer, has restrained future promotion in pursuance to
Rules, 2016, with a clarification that as per the earlier Rules,
Regulation and policies the promotion may be continued.
4. The ground, therefore, has been agitated on behalf of
petitioners-respondent nos. 1 and 2 that when the order has
been passed by the Co-ordinate Bench for restricting to grant
promotion on the basis of Rules, 2016 and promotion as per
earlier Rules, Regulations and Government policies can be
given, then coming out with decision at paragraph 5 of the
resolution dated 07.03.2022 whereby all the promotions i.e.,
from the post of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer
including hierarchical promotion from the post of Junior
Engineer to Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer to
Superintendent Engineer, Superintending Engineer to Chief
Engineer and Chief Engineer to Engineer-in-Chief, which has
been decided to be granted on the basis of Rules, 1939, is not
proper.
5. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners,
respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that in the light of
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge has passed the
ad interim order not to grant any further promotion.
6. While on the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior
counsel appearing for the pro forma respondents [Respondent
nos. 8, 9, 11 and 14 to 18], having the same grievance as
agitated by Mr. Krisha Murari, learned counsel for the
appellant has submitted by referring to the Resolution No.
933(S) dated 07.03.2022 that the learned Single Judge, ought
to have passed the order permitting the State to grant
promotion order(s) on the basis of the applicable Rule instead
of passing the order to the effect that no further promotion
shall be granted to any of the employee till the next date of
hearing.
7. Such submission has been made on the backdrop of the
fact that, in the State, if the promotion will be restrained to
be granted by order passed by this Court then how the State
will function as also the same will be led to a chaotic
situation. Further, the same will also be detrimental to the
interest to the candidates who are aspiring for promotion on
the basis of applicable Rules, 2016 or Rules, 1939.
8. In response, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent no. 1 and 2, the writ
petitioners, has submitted that there is no error in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge since no decision can be
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
taken by the State by way of an executive order said to be
passed in exercise of power conferred under Article 166(3)
read with Article 162 of the Constitution of India keeping the
Rules of recruitment, which comes under the power conferred
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It
has been contended that the Rule which has been formulated
either the Rules, 1939 or Rules, 2016, both are under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are
subordinate legislations, which cannot be
supplanted/superseded by executive instruction said to be
passed in exercise of Article 166(3) read with Article 162 of
the Constitution of India.
9. Learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid
ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge on the
basis of the aforesaid premise has passed the ad interim stay
order vide order dated 02.09.2024 after assigning the settled
position of law that any executive instruction cannot be
supplanted/superseded any statutory rule, therefore, the
order impugned cannot be said to suffer from an error.
10. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the
respondents-State has submitted that there cannot be any
blanket ad interim stay in matter of grant of promotion of any
of the hierarchy.
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the pleadings available on record as also the order
passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in
order passed on 26.09.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of
2016 and order dated 17.08.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No.
3027 of 2016 [Ashok Kumar Roy & Ors Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Ors] with W.P. (S) No. 2984 of 2016 and W.P.
(S) No. 3031 of 2016.
12. The learned Co-ordinate Division Bench vide order dated
26.09.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016 stayed
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer from the post of
Assistant Engineer till next date of hearing. For ready
reference, the order dated 26.09.2016 is quoted as under:
"1.Having heard senior counsel for the petitioners and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we,
hereby, direct the respondents that the promotion to the
post of Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant
Engineer shall not be filed up, till next date of
hearing.
2. This matter is adjourned to be enlisted on 24th October,
2016."
13. One Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 6527 of
2017 was filed in W.P.(S] No. 3027 of 2016 for impleadment
of party as also for modification of order dated 26th
September, 2016, as quoted and referred above, to the extent
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
that as per earlier prevailing Rules, the promotions may be
given in the cadre of Engineers.
14. The Co-ordinate Division Bench, after hearing learned
counsel for the parties, vide order dated 17.08.2017 directed
the State of Jharkhand not to promote any employee to the
post of Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant
Engineer as per the Jharkhand Engineering Services
Recruitment Rules, 2016. For ready reference, relevant
paragraphs 11 and 12 of order dated 17.08.2017 is quoted as
under:
"11.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in
the writ petition, newly enacted Rules, namely, Jharkhand
Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016 are under
challenge, which is at Annexure 1, to the memo of W.P.(S)
No.3027 of 2016 and this Court has granted stay to the
effect that promotion to the post of Executive Engineers from
the post of Assistant Engineers shall not be filled up. This
order may slightly be modified to the extent that promotion to
the post of Executive Engineers from the post of Assistant
Engineers shall not be filled up as per the new Rules i.e.
Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016,
meaning thereby that as per the earlier Rules, Regulations
and Policies, the promotion may be continued. These
promotions will be subject to the result of these Writ
Petitions.
12.Thus, looking to the challenge in the writ petitions
including W.P.(S) No. 3027 of 2016 and other writ petitions,
which are on Board today, we, hereby, direct the State of
Jharkhand not to promote any employee to the post of
Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant Engineer as
per the Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules,
2016. This modified stay will be continued to be operative
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
during pendency and final hearing of the writ petition in
W.P.(S) No.3027 of 2016 as well as W.P.(S) No.2984 of 2016
and W.P.(S) No. 3031 of 2016."
15. The Co-ordinate Division Bench further while hearing
I.A. No. 5096 of 2017 in W.P.(S) No. 3027 of 2016, has held at
paragraph 19 and 21 as under:
19) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears
that the Rules, viz., Jharkhand Engineering Services
Recruitment Rules, 2016, is under challenge. As per these
Rules, Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) were to be
promoted on the post of Assistant Engineers with a
reservation of 40%. Now, after getting this promotion in
Assistant Engineer with reservation, there was originally, no
further reservation to the post of Executive Engineer. Now,
reservation has been introduced even in the promotional
cadre in the Executive Engineers i.e. those who are Assistant
Engineers (Diploma Holders) shall have special
reservation/quota for the promotion on the post of Executive
Engineers. This has been introduced by way of enactment of
new Rules namely, Jharkhand Engineering Services
Recruitment Rules, 2016, which is under challenge. This
reservation in promotion has been stayed by this Court vide
order dated 26th September, 2016. We have also modified
this stay in I.A. No.6527 of 2017 to the effect that the stay
granted by this Court is only with respect to promotion as per
the Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules,
2016. Thus, promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer
(Diploma Holder) to the post of Executive Engineer as per
Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016,
shall remain stayed during pendency and final hearing of
W.P.(S) No.3027 of 2016 and other writ petitions which are to
be heard together along with this writ petition and they are
W.P.(S) No.2984 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.3031 of 2016.
20) Counsel for the applicant submitted that grant of stay
during pendency and final hearing of the writ petitions will
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
tantamount to allowing the writ petitions. We are not
accepting this contention mainly for the reason that once the
stay is vacated and if the Assistant Engineers (Diploma
Holders) are permitted to be promoted to in reservation
category/quota on the post of Executive Engineers, it will
affect the career of the senior Engineers (Degree Holders)
who are Assistant Engineers. Moreover, final seniority list
has also been published which is annexed in the writ
petition. Even otherwise also, we have already fixed the date
of final hearing of the aforesaid writ petitions. In this set of
circumstance, the promotion can always be given by the
Government from the post of Assistant Engineers to the post
of Executive Engineers, as per the earlier prevailing Rules,
Regulations and Governmental policies, but, not as per the
Rules, namely, Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment
Rules, 2016. The promotions granted, as per earlier Rules,
Regulations, Government Policy shall be subject to the result
of these Writ Petitions.
21) With these observation, this Interlocutory Application is,
hereby, disposed of.
16. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the issue
which fell for consideration in the aforesaid writ petition(s) is
the validity of the Rules, 2016. The Co-ordinate Division
Bench has passed an order on 26th September, 2016, wherein
the challenge of Rule, 2016 was the subject matter by holding
therein that no promotion shall be granted and the said order
has been modified by passing order in Interlocutory
Application No. 6527 of 2017 arising out of W.P. (S) No. 3027
of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Co-ordinate Division
Bench has passed order, directing the State of Jharkhand not
to promote any employee to the post of Executive Engineer
- 10 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
from the post of Assistant Engineer as per the Jharkhand
Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016.
17. It is further evident that order dated 26th September,
2016 has been slightly modified vide order dated 17.08.2017
by the Co-ordinate Division Bench, to the extent that the
promotion to the post of Executive Engineer to the post of
Assistant Engineer, shall not be filled up as per new Rules,
2016; meaning thereby that as per the earlier rules and
regulations and policies, the promotion may be continued
and the promotions shall be subject to result of these writ
petitions.
18. It further appears from the paragraph 20 of order dated
17th August, 2017 that the Co-ordinate Division Bench has
further referred therein that the promotions can always be
given by the Government from the post of Assistant Engineer
to the Executive Engineer as per the earlier rules, regulations
and government policies but not as per Rules, 2016.
19. The State Government thereafter has come out with a
resolution no. 933(S) dated 07.03.2022. In the said resolution
while referring to order dated 17.08.2017 passed in W.P. (S)
No. 3027 of 2016 and other analogous matters, a decision
has been taken that no promotion shall be granted on the
basis of Rules, 2016 rather be granted on the basis of Rules,
1939.
- 11 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
20. For ready reference, paragraph 5 of the resolution no.
933(S) dated 07.03.2022 is quoted as under:
"5. विवभन्न स्तर ों पर प्र न्नवि श्ृोंखला क बनाये रखने के वलए काययविि एिों बेित्तर
प्रशासवनक प्रबोंधन के दृविक ण से W.P (S) No.-3027/2016 अश क कुमार राय
एिों अन्य बनाम राज्य सरकार एिों अन्य मामले में विनाों क-17.08.2017 क पाररि
अोंिररम न्यायािे श क दृविपथ में रखिे हुए सिायक अवभयोंिा से काययपालक अवभयोंिा
के पि पर प्र न्नवि सविि अवभयोंिाओों के सभी स्तर ों यथा- कनीय अवभयोंिा से सिायक
अवभयोंिा, काययपालक अवभयोंिा से अधीक्षण अवभयोंिा, अधीक्षण अवभयोंिा से मुख्य
अवभयोंिा एिों मुख्य अवभयोंिा से अवभयोंिा प्रमुख के पि पर झारखण्ड अवभयोंत्रण सेिा
वनयुक्ति वनयमािली-2016 के लागू ि ने के पूिय की वनयमािली (वबिार अवभयोंत्रण सेिा
वनयमािली-1939) एिों इस क्रम में वनगयि सभी पररपत्र . वनयम ,ों आिे श ों में प्र न्नवि िे िु
वनविि प्रािधान ों के आल क में प्र न्नवि प्रिान करने की कारय िाई करने का वनणयय वलया
जािा िै । यि उि िाि में पाररि ि ने िाले अोंविम न्यायािे श के फलाफल से प्रभाविि
ि गा।
साथ िी W.P (S) No.-3027/2016 एिों समरूप िाि ों में अोंविम न्यायािे श
पाररि ि ने िक झारखण्ड अवभयोंत्रण सेिा वनयुक्ति वनयमािली-2016 क स्थवगि रखे
जाने एिों वबिार अवभयोंत्रण सेिा वनयुक्ति वनयमािली 1939 एिों इस क्रम में वनगयि अन्य
सोंकल्प/पररपत्र/आिे श प्र न्नवि सविि अन्य सभी सेिा शत्त ों के मामले में भी प्रभािी रखे
जाने का वनणयय वलया जािा िै ।"
21. The writ petitioners, the respondent nos. 1 and 2, being
aggrieved with the decision as contained in resolution date
07.03.2022 as under paragraph 5, has come to this Court by
filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3495 of 2024 taking the
ground that the Rules, 2016 which has been enacted under
conferment of power of proviso to Article 309 to the
- 12 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
Constitution of India cannot be altered/modified or even
superseded by the executive instruction said to be taken in
exercise of power conferred under Article 166(3) read with
Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
22. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the petitioner and
the State, has passed ad interim order on 02.09.2024 keeping
all the promotions at halt directing that no further promotion
shall be given to any of the employees till the next date of
hearing, which is the subject matter of present intra-court
appeal.
23. Since, the appellant herein was not the party before the
writ Court, as such one Interlocutory Application being I.A.
No. 11589 of 2024 was filed seeking leave of this Court to file
the instant intra court appeal, which was allowed vide order
dated 19th March, 2025 and granted leave to file appeal.
24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, the issue crop up
before this Court that whether proviso to Article 309 can be
superseded by any executive instruction.
25. There is no dispute over the aforesaid issue if in course
of recruitment process, if any resolution is passed under the
power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution of India, it will take the shape of subordinate
legislation and the same can only be superseded if the State
Government will come out with a rule made by the
- 13 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
Parliament or the Assembly, as the case may be. The Rule
formulated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India in any circumstance cannot be superseded by the
executive instruction. Reference may be made to the
judgment rendered in the case of K Kuppusamy & Anr. Vs.
State of T.N.& Ors. [(1998) 8 SCC 469], wherein at
paragraph 3 it has been held s under:
"3. The short point on which these appeals must succeed is
that the Tribunal fell into an error in taking the view that
since the Government had indicated its intention to amend
the relevant rules, its action in proceeding on the assumption
of such amendment could not be said to be irrational or
arbitrary and, therefore, the consequential orders passed
have to be upheld. We are afraid this line of approach cannot
be countenanced. The relevant rules, it is admitted, were
framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
They are statutory rules. Statutory rules cannot be
overridden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely
because the Government had taken a decision to amend the
rules does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the
rule is amended, the rule applies. Even today the
amendment has not been effected. As and when it is effected
ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly
or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. The
Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in ignoring the rule."
26. Further, the similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of P. Sadagopan & Ors. Vs. Food
Corporation of India, Zonal Officer (South Zone) [(1997) 4
SCC 301)], wherein it has been held that ".....It is now settled
- 14 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
legal position that executive instructions cannot be issued in
derogation of the statutory Regulations..."
27. This Court, in view of the aforesaid position of law and
adverting to the order passed by the State as contained in
resolution dated 07.03.2022 particularly paragraph 5 thereof,
has found that the promotion from the post of Assistant
Engineer to Executive Engineer including onward hierarchical
promotions up-to the post of Engineer-in-Chief has been
decided to be granted on the basis of the Bihar Engineering
Services Recruitment Rules, 1939, as adopted by the State of
Jharkhand, and not on the basis of Jharkhand Engineering
Services Recruitment Rules, 2016.
28. Argument has been advanced, by Mr. Ajit Kumar,
learned senior counsel appearing for the performa
respondents, that there ought not to have to a chaotic
situation and for smooth functioning of the administration in
the State, the public servants, who are aspirants either to be
promoted from the post of Executive Engineer to
Superintendent Engineer and onward promotion to the
higher post(s), it was incumbent upon the State to have a
clarification or ought to have sought for leave from the Court
for the modification of order dated 02.09.2024 passed in
W.P.(S) No. 3495 of 2024.
- 15 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
29. This Court is in agreement with such submission
advanced by learned counsel for the performa respondents
for two reasons. Firstly, the State, before issuance of
resolution dated 07.03.2022, ought to have restricted itself
with respect to issue of promotion from the post of Assistant
Engineer to that of the post of Executive Engineer and;
secondly if the requirement has been thought to be there by
the State authority then a clarificatory order ought to have
been sought for from the Court for modification of order dated
17.08.2017 but without taking recourse of the modification of
the said order, straightway resolution dated 07.03.2022 has
been issued.
30. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, after
hearing the parties, clarified the issue to grant promotion on
the basis of Rules, 1939 so far as promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer is concerned. The
learned Single Judge, ought to have taken into consideration
the aforesaid aspect of the matter and on the principle of
binding effect the order ought to have been passed by
restricting their promotion only up-to the level of executive
engineer. However, the State although ought to have taken
into consideration the aforesaid fact before coming with the
resolution dated 07.03.2022 but as per paragraph 5 of the
aforesaid resolution, the provision has been made for the
- 16 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
promotion i.e., from the post of Assistant Engineer to
Executive Engineer including hierarchical promotion from the
post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, Executive
Engineer to Superintendent Engineer, Superintending
Engineer to Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer to Engineer-
in-Chief, to be granted on the basis of Rules, 1939.
31. This Court in view of the order passed by Co-ordinate
Division Bench dated 26.09.2016 and clarificatory order
dated 17.08.2017, is of the view that the State ought to have
come out with a resolution by virtue of taking decision to
grant promotion up-to the post of Executive Engineer on the
basis of Rules, 1939.
32. This Court, therefore, is of the view that putting
restriction not to grant any promotion is being considered to
be in the teeth of order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in 26.09.2016 and clarificatory order dated
17.08.2017.
33. Accordingly, order dated passed by the learned Single
Judge is modified to the extent that the promotion from the
post of Assistant Engineer up-to Executive Engineer is to be
considered on the basis of Rules, 1939.
34. So far as promotion to be granted to the post of
Superintending Engineer up-to the level of Engineer-in-Chief
- 17 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
is concerned, it is upon the State to grant promotion on the
applicable rules.
35. With the aforesaid modification in the order dated
02.09.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3495 of 2024 by the
learned Single Judge, the instant intra-court appeal stands
disposed of.
36. It is made clear that this order is only restricted to the
order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2024
having no effect on the issue of merit, which is pending
consideration before the learned Single Judge.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Alankar/
N.A.F.R.
- 18 -
