[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Satyadeo Mohan Ghosh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 4 December, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  W.P. (S) No. 654 of 2018
                              ----

Satyadeo Mohan Ghosh...                      Petitioner
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.       ...    ... Respondents
                           with
                 W.P. (S) No. 2984 of 2016
                              ----
Naseem Ali & Ors     ...                    Petitioners
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.       ...    ... Respondents
                          with
                 W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016
                              ----
Ashok Kumar Roy & Ors ...                       Petitioners
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.       ...    ... Respondents
                          with
                 W.P. (S) No. 3031 of 2016
                              ----
Pradip Kumar Gupta & Ors                      Petitioners
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.       ...    ... Respondents
                          with

                              ----
Sanat Kumar               ...                   Petitioner
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.       ...    ... Respondents
                          with

                              ----

Diploma Engineers Association, Jharkhand through its General Secretary Shekhar Kumar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents with

----

Shyam Das Singh      ...                   Petitioner
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors.       ...    ... Respondents
                            -------

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv. [through VC] Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate Mr. Madhavi Nikunj Horo, Advocate Ms. Divya, Advocate Ms. Esha Kaushik, Advocate Mrs. Priti Kumari, Advocate Mr. Yash Singh, Advocate Mrs. Shweta Suman, Advocate Ms. Pragunee Kashyap, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to Advocate General Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC IV For the JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Adv.

Mr. Prince Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Jay Prakash, Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Adv.

For JESA : Mr.Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kr. Pathak, Advocate For the Intervener : Mr. Attau Rahman Masoodi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Priyanshu Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kumar Karan, Advocate

--------

th Order No. 49 : Dated 4 December, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

1. Leave has been sought for by the learned State counsel

for taking the Interlocutory Application on record, copy of

which has been served upon learned counsel for the parties.

2. It has been submitted that the said Interlocutory

Application has not been instituted.

3. Leave, as sought for, is granted.

4. Office is directed to institute the same.

5. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application is instituted as

I.A. No. 16268 of 2025, which is taken on record for

hearing.

6. The instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.

16268 of 2025 has been filed seeking further four weeks‟ time

to comply with order dated 13.10.2025 and 13.11.2025

passed by this Court.

7. It has been contended therein that this Court vide order

dated 13.11.2025 was pleased to grant time to the

respondents till 04.12.2025 for getting approval over the draft

of the proposed Rules, but the same could not be approved

owing to the following reasons, as mentioned in paragraph 4

of the said Interlocutory Application, which is quoted as

under:

"4. That the Hon‟ble Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 was pleased to grant time to the answering respondent till 04.12.2025 getting approval over the draft of the proposed Rules, but the same has not been approved owing to the following reasons:

A. That pursuant to the order dated 13.10.2025, the file containing the proposed Jharkhand Engineering Service, Appointment and other service condition Rules, 2025 having approval of the departmental minister was sent on 24.10.2025 to the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand for its approval by the cabinet.

B. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the said proposal could not be placed before the cabinet held on 03.11.2025 and the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand has raised certain queries with regard to the same, which needs to be addressed. C.In order to meet the queries raised by Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department, Govt. of Jharkhand on certain provision of the draft rules, it was felt necessary that the same be amended accordingly.

Subsequently, after amending some of the provisions of the draft rules, it has been placed before the competent authority for approval.

Different Associations like Jharkhand Diploma Engineers Association/ Membersof different Association have filed different cases with prayers in their particular interest. To resolve the disputed issue for once and all and bring all the stake holders on a common platform without prejudice the competent authority has asked to clarify some points in the proposed rules under consideration.

After the approval is obtained from the competent authority it will be sent to department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, JPSC and Department of Finance for concurrence and to Law Department for legal vetting.

After the above process is completed it will be sent to Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department for getting approval of the Cabinet.

The answering respondent is in the process of taking approval of the above mentioned departments& authority. It is likely to take some more time in notifying the rules."

8. It has been contended that for the reasons aforesaid

four weeks‟ further time be granted to comply with the order

dated 13.10.2025 in its true letter and spirit.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently

opposed the prayer made in the Interlocutory Application and

submission has been made that it is the fourth Interlocutory

Application wherein time and again, adjournment has been

sought for coming with the amended Rules, 2016 besides on

several occasions time has been granted by this Court.

10. It has further been submitted although the learned

Advocate General has undertaken before this Court, as taken

note of in order dated 10.03.2022 that new Rules will be

framed but even after lapse of more than nine years of filing

of the instant writ petitions the amended rule has not been

framed with mala fide intention due to which not only the

promotion of engineers in Road Construction Department is

at stall but also the arrangement is being made in In-charge

capacity.

11. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced

on behalf of parties and going into the contention made in the

Interlocutory Application [I.A. No. 16268 of 2025], needs to

refer herein the background of institution of the instant writ

petitions that prior to coming into effect of the Jharkhand

Engineering Service Rules, 2016 [in short „Rules, 2016‟] the

„Bihar Engineering Class-I Service Rules, 1939‟ [herein after

referred to as Rules, 1939] was in force. The Rules, 2016 has

been issued in suppression to Rules, 1939.

12. The State of Jharkhand has come out with the plea that

the State is intending to amend the Rules, 2016, as has been

taken note in order dated 10th March, 2022 passed in W.P.(S)

No. 2984 of 2016 and batch cases [Naseem Ali & Ors Vs.

State of Jharkhand & Ors.]

13. This Court has gone through order dated 10th March,

2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2984 of 2016 and batch cases

and found that while referring the statement made in para-9

of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 15.02.2022 filed

on behalf the State wherein it has been stated that

amendment in Jharkhand Engineering Service Rules, 2016 is

underway. The Court taking into consideration such

intention of the State has granted three months time. For

ready reference, order dated 10th March, 2022 passed in

W.P.(S) No. 2984 of 2016 is quoted as under:

"Heard the parties.

In view of the statement made in para-9 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 15.02.2022 filed on behalf the State that amendment in Jharkhand Engineering Service Rules, 2016 is underway and in the meantime, process of granting conditional promotion to the members of Jharkhand Engineering Services as per the prevailing Rules has also been started by the Department in light of the order dated 17.08.2017 in the instant batch of cases, we are of the opinion that already five years have lapsed since the order, therefore, such action should be taken by the State within a further period of three months.

Put up these cases on 08.06.2022."

14. Thereafter, several opportunities were granted to the

State but taking one excuse or the other, the amended Rules,

2016 has not been brought by the State.

15. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 28th April,

2025, the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed the

issue of validity of Rules, 2016, whereupon, learned Advocate

General appeared for the State and submitted that the

Government has considered the aforesaid issues, which

would be evident from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State

on 06.04.2023 wherein the specific statement has been given

at Para 17 that the respondents are taking due steps to get

the amendment done at the earliest. The learned Advocate

General, on the basis of the aforesaid statement, has

submitted that since the Government is thinking to amend

the aforesaid part of the Rule 2016 which is under challenge

in the writ petitions, as such sought for adjournment

awaiting for the amendment which is under consideration

with the State Government.

16. This Court, on the specific statement made by learned

Advocate General adjourned the matter to be listed on 17th

June, 2025

17. For ready reference, order 28.04.2025 passed in W.P. (S)

No. 654 of 2018 and other batch cases is quoted as under:

"Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel at the outset has submitted that he is advocate on record in W.P.(S) No. 2984 of 2016, however, he is having instructions to argue the matters being W.P.(S) No. 3027 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No. 3031 of 2016 and he will file the appearance on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing in aforesaid three writ petitions has submitted that the validity of the Rule 2016 is under challenge.

3. It has been submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved with the insertion of the quota of 50 per cent of the total

posts which has been decided to be filled up from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of the post Executive Engineer.

4. It has further been contended that the same is in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India due to the reason that the Assistant Engineers who have been promoted from the post of Junior Engineer in consequence of having certificate from the AMIE and the moment they have inducted into the cadre of Assistant Engineer, they cannot be allowed to get the benefit of such Assistant Engineers by fixing quota of 40 per cent again for the purpose of consideration of their cases to be promoted as Executive Engineer.

5. Learned Advocate General is present and while addressing the Court he has submitted that the Government has considered the aforesaid issues, which would be evident from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State on 06.04.2023 wherein the specific statement has been given at Para 17 that the respondents are taking due steps to get the amendment done at the earliest.

6. The learned Advocate General, on the basis of the aforesaid statement, has submitted that since the Government is thinking to amend the aforesaid part of the Rule 2016 which is under challenge in the writ petitions.

7. As such, the learned Advocate General has sought for adjournment awaiting for the amendment which is under consideration with the State Government.

8. Considering the same, the matter is being adjourned to be listed on 17th June, 2025.

18. The matter was listed on 17th June, 2025. The learned

Advocate General appeared and submitted that the rule is in

the process of finalization. Such submission has been made

on the basis of fact that the new Rule has been approved by

the Departmental Minister and it is now to be placed before

the concerned departments for the purpose of aforesaid

Rules, i.e., Law Department, Personnel and Administrative

Reforms Department and Finance Department of the State of

Jharkhand. Thereafter, the matter will be forwarded to

J.P.S.C. for consultation and then it will be placed before the

Cabinet for the purpose of its notification, if approved. This

Court considering the aforesaid submission adjourned the

matter to be listed on 04.08.2025.

19. For ready reference order dated 15th June, 2025 passed

in W.P. (S) No. 654 of 2018 and other batch cases is quoted

as under

"Reference be made to the order dated 28.04.2025.

2. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel, while pointing out the said order, has submitted that no affidavit in terms of the said order has been filed.

3. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General, has submitted that the Rule is in the process of finalization.

4. It has been submitted that the new Rule has been approved by the Departmental Minister and it is now to be placed before the concerned departments for the purpose of aforesaid Rules, i.e., Law Department, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department and Finance Department of the State of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the matter will be forwarded to J.P.S.C. for consultation and then it will be placed before the Cabinet for the purpose of its notification, if approved.

5. Considering the aforesaid submission, the matter is being posted after six weeks.

6. List these cases on 04.08.2025."

20. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 4th August, 2025.

The learned Advocate General has appeared and pressing an

Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.10336 of 2025, has

submitted that after the rules having been approved by some

of the Departments, it is now lying pending before the

Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short "J.P.S.C.")

for its opinion. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact

directed to implead the J.P.S.C. through its Secretary as

party respondent, in all the cases. Since, it was informed that

Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel is the retained counsel

for the J.P.S.C., as such he appeared and was directed to

seek instruction as to which shortest possible time, the

opinion which has been sought on the issue of formulation of

Rule, would be communicated to the State.

21. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to be listed on

12th August, 2025.

22. For ready reference, order dated 4th August, 2025

passed in W.P. (S) No. 654 of 2018 and other batch cases is

quoted as under:

"In the change circumstances, as has been submitted by the learned Advocate General, based upon the averment made in the interlocutory application being I.A. No.10336 of 2025, that after the rules having been approved by some of the Departments, it is now lying pending before the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short "J.P.S.C.") for its opinion.

2. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the J.P.S.C. through its Secretary, needs to be impleaded as party respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners are directed to implead Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary as party respondent, in all the cases.

- 10 -

4. It has been informed that Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, is the retained counsel for the J.P.S.C.

5. Let the copy of the writ petition along with interlocutory application where the averment has been made by the State that the issue of finalization of Rule is lying pending before the J.P.S.C., be supplied to Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel, by tomorrow, i.e., 05.08.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the J.P.S.C. is directed to seek instruction as to which shortest possible time, the opinion which has been sought on the issue of formulation of Rule, be communicated to the State.

7. With the consent of the parties, let these matters be listed on 12th August, 2025.

8. In the meanwhile, let response to the interlocutory application being I.A. No.11333 of 2024, be filed by the respondent-State."

23. Accordingly, the matter was heard on 12th August,

2025. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for Jharkhand

Public Service Commission has submitted that JPSC has filed

an affidavit on 08.08.2025 wherein it has been stated that

certain infirmities have been found in the proposed

Jharkhand Engineering Service Appointment (Amendment)

Rules, 2025. The infirmities have been referred in Annexure-

A to the affidavit. It has been stated that the same has been

communicated to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction

Department, Government of Jharkhand for rectifying the

aforesaid infirmities. Upon this, learned Advocate General

appearing on behalf of the State had submitted that the State

is keen to rectify the infirmities as available in the

communication dated 06.8.2025. It has further been

- 11 -

submitted that within two weeks the fresh draft of Jharkhand

Engineering Service Appointment (Amendment) Rules, 2025

will be sent to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.

The learned counsel appearing for the JPSC has submitted

that one week time may be granted for giving consent of the

aforesaid draft Rule after receipt of the same from the State.

24. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts, directed to

list these matters after three weeks so that the descriptive

affidavit may be filed on behalf of the State as well as JPSC.

Accordingly, the matters were directed to be listed on 4th

September, 2025.

25. For ready reference, order dated 12th August, 2025 is

quoted as under:

"Reference may be made to the order dated 4th August, 2025.

2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission has filed an affidavit on 08.08.2025 stating therein that certain infirmities have been found in the proposed Jharkhand Engineering Service Appointment (Amendment) Rules, 2025. The infirmities have been referred in Annexure-A to the affidavit. It has been stated that the same has been communicated to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand for rectifying the aforesaid infirmities.

3. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the State is keen to rectify the infirmities as available in the communication dated 06.8.2025. It has been submitted that within two weeks the fresh draft of Jharkhand Engineering Service Appointment

- 12 -

(Amendment) Rules, 2025 will be sent to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.

4. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, the learned counsel appearing for the JPSC has submitted that one week time may be granted for giving consent of the aforesaid draft Rule after receipt of the same from the State.

5. Mr. Jitendra Singh, the learned senior counsel along with the other counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that these matters may be posted after three weeks.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, list these matters after three weeks so that the descriptive affidavit may be filed on behalf of the State as well as JPSC.

7. Let these matters be listed on 4th September, 2025.

26. Accordingly, the matter came on Board on 4th

September, 2025. But the matters were adjourned on the

basis of submission made by learned Advocate General that

the affidavit is ready and he will file the same today. The copy

of the same will be served upon the learned Counsel for the

petitioners in course of the day. This Court has gone through

the affidavit and found that after making necessary correction

by the State it has been sent to the J.P.S.C. on 01.09.2025

which was received on 02.09.2025. Accordingly, Mr.

Piprawall, learned Counsel for the J.P.S.C. was directed to file

affidavit on or before the next date of hearing regarding the

final decision. He has submitted that necessary steps will be

taken.

27. Considering the aforesaid fact, the matters were directed

to be listed on 15.09.2025.

- 13 -

28. For ready reference, order dated 4th September, 2025 is

quoted as under:

Learned Advocate General has submitted that the affidavit is ready and he will file the same today. The copy of the same will be served upon the learned Counsel for the petitioners in course of the day.

2. We have gone through the affidavit and found that after making necessary correction by the State it has been sent to the J.P.S.C. on 01.09.2025 received on 02.09.2025.

3. Mr. Piprawall, learned Counsel for the J.P.S.C. on or before the next date of hearing will come with the final decision by filing an affidavit. He has submitted that necessary steps will be taken.

4. Considering the same, as jointly prayed for on behalf of the learned Counsel for the parties, let these matters be listed under the same heading on 15.09.2025."

29. Accordingly, the matter was taken up on 15th

September, 2025. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for

the respondent-JPSC appeared has submitted that due

advice, as has been sought for by the State with respect to

the amendment which is to be carried out in the Rule, has

been given.

30. Upon this, learned Advocate General appearing for the

State has submitted that now the advice of the JPSC has

been received on the basis of document, copy of which has

been supplied by Mr. Piprawal, learned counsel for the JPSC

to learned Advocate General. Submission has been made by

learned Advocate General that all efforts will be taken to

- 14 -

bring on record the required amended rule by way of filing

affidavit.

31. Therefore, again the matter was adjourned to be listed

on 13th October, 2025.

32. For ready reference, order dated 15th September, 2025 is

quoted as under:

"1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent- JPSC has submitted that due advice, as has been sought for by the State with respect to the amendment which is to be carried out in the Rule, has been given.

3.Mr. Advocate General appearing for the State has submitted that now the advice of the JPSC has been received on the basis of document, copy of which has been supplied by Mr. Piprawal, learned counsel for the JPSC to learned Advocate General. Submission has been made by learned Advocate General that all efforts will be taken to bring on record the required amended rule by way of filing affidavit.

4.Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 654 of 2018 has insisted to hear the matter separately.

5.Let these matters be listed on 13th October, 2025, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties."

33. On 13th October, 2025, this Court took note of the fact

that no affidavit has been filed in pursuance to order dated

15.09.2025 by showing the compliance of specific statement

made by learned Advocate General as taken note in order

dated 15.09.2025. Therefore, this Court has constrained to

criticize the State functionary by making statement at

paragraph 11 of the order dated 13.10.2025 making specific

- 15 -

observation at paragraph 11 to the effect that „This Court fails

to understand that how the State is functioning in absence of

any specific Rule by denying the promotion to one or the other

Engineers belonging to different cadres.‟

34. However, the prayer for adjournment of the matter for

four weeks was made for the purpose of getting approval of

the different Departments, so that it be sent to the Cabinet.

Such excuse led this Court to make an observation at

paragraph 13 that the State Government is not taking sincere

endeavour in spite of the specific submission made to that

effect by the learned Advocate General to bring the final Rule

on record, as has been taken note in the order dated 15th

September, 2025. This Court has further made observation

that the State for one reason or the other is delaying the

matter reasons best known to the State. This Court further

observed at paragraph 15 that it is nothing, but the lethargic

approach of the State. However, this Court, on the basis of

instruction so received telephonically in the midst of the

proceeding, by way of last indulgence, adjourned the matter

to be listed on 13th November, 2025 for getting final approval

of the Rule and to bring it on record by way of an affidavit.

35. For ready reference, order dated 13.10.2025 is quoted

as under:

"1. The batch of writ petitions involves the validity of Jharkhand Engineering Service Rules, 2016 which has been

- 16 -

enacted in supersession to the Bihar Engineering Service Rules, 1939.

2. One interim order was passed on 17th August, 2017 and when the matter was being heard, then the learned Advocate General has submitted that the Government is proposing again to amend the 2016 Rule, which has been referred in the order dated 28th April, 2025.

3. The matter when was posted on 17th June, 2025, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the new Rule has been approved by the Departmental Minister and it is placed before the concerned Department. Subsequent thereto, it has been brought to the notice of this Court, as has been referred in the order dated 04th August, 2025, that the matter has been reported to be sent to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for its advise/opinion. As such, this Court vide order dated 04th August, 2025 has impleaded the Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary as party to the proceeding with a direction to seek instruction as to under what shortest possible time, the opinion which has been sought on the issue of formation of Rule, be communicated to the State.

4. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission by filing an affidavit on 08th August, 2025, as taken note in the order dated 12th August, 2025, has sought for one week‟s time for giving opinion of the aforesaid draft Rule after receipt of the same from the State.

5. It appears from the order dated 04th September, 2025 that some rectification is required by the State in the draft Rule and, as such, the same was sent to the State Government. The State Government has rectified the same and again sent it to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, as taken note in the order dated 15th September, 2025.

6. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State on that date has submitted that all efforts will be taken to bring on record the required amended Rule by way of an affidavit.

7. Mr. Shray Mishra, learned A.C. to A.G. has submitted orally seeking four weeks‟ time, as per the instruction.

- 17 -

8. No affidavit has been filed to that effect seeking modification of the order by way of extension of time which was required in view of the specific statement made by learned Advocate General, as taken note in the order dated 15th September, 2025.

9. The reason for referring the details of the above orders is that the matter is pending since 2018, Rule 2016 has been enacted in supersession to the 1939 Rule and again the Government has proposed to come out with a new Rule in supersession to the 2016 Rule. Thus, it is evident that the Recruitment Rule, which is lying for its consideration under the power of Judicial Review of the year 2016 and now almost 9 years has expired, but still we are on the stage of the day when the writ petition was filed.

10. This is on the basis of the decision which is being taken on behalf of the State and the effect is 5 that in absence of any Rule, the entire requirement/promotion came to stand still.

11. This Court fails to understand that how the State is functioning in absence of any specific Rule by denying the promotion to one or the other Engineers belonging to different cadres.

12. Today, four weeks‟ time again has been sought for. The excuse has been given by the learned State counsel that it is for the purpose of getting approval in the different Departments, thereafter, it will be sent to the Cabinet.

13. This Court, in the aforesaid backdrop, is of the view that the State Government is not taking sincere endeavour inspite of the specific submission made to that effect by the learned Advocate General to bring the final Rule on record, as has been taken note in the order dated 15th September, 2025.

14. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the State for one reason or the other is delaying the matter reasons best known to the State.

15. This Court is further of the view that it is nothing, but the lethargic approach of the State. However, in the midst of proceeding, learned State counsel has got the telephonic instruction and as per the instruction received, the time has

- 18 -

been sought for upto 06th November, 2025 for final approval of the Rule and to bring it on record by way of an affidavit.

16. This Court, before passing the further necessary order, is adjourning the matter by granting time upto 06th November, 2025, by way of last indulgence.

17. List these matters on 13th November, 2025."

36. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 13th November,

2025. When the cases were taken up, learned Advocate

General appeared and pressed one interlocutory application

being I.A. No.15196 of 2025, wherein again four weeks‟ time

was sought for due to the reason that the Cabinet Secretariat

and the Vigilance Department, State of Jharkhand, has made

certain queries which needs to be addressed.

37. This Court, taking into consideration the specific

direction passed in the order dated 13.10.2025, called upon

the Secretary, Road Construction Department and the

Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

Department to explain the issue as to why the rule has not

been framed.

38. Accordingly, the Secretary, Road Construction

Department appeared and stated before this Court that some

mistake has been crept up in the file, as has been pointed

out, before sending it to the Cabinet. Thereafter, again the file

has been sent to the parent department, i.e., Road

Construction Department, and after rectification it is to be

sent to the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha

- 19 -

Department and other departments, therefore, time has been

sought for by filing interlocutory application.

39. The said application was opposed by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners. But the Court taking

into consideration the fact that the State Government is in

process of formation of said Rules and seeking time by way of

last indulgence, as such, adjourned the matter to be listed

after three weeks making it clear that there will be no further

adjournment on the ground which has been sought for in the

last two occasions, as would be evident from the order dated

15th September, 2025 and 13th October, 2025.

40. For ready reference, order dated 13th November, 2025 is

quoted as under:

"Reference be made to the order dated 13.10.2025 wherein this Court has criticized the State for not coming out with the final shape of the rule, as would be evident from paragraph 10 to 16, for ready reference, the same are being referred herein:-

"10. This is on the basis of the decision which is being taken on behalf of the State and the effect is that in absence of any Rule, the entire requirement/promotion came to stand still.

11. This Court fails to understand that how the State is functioning in absence of any specific Rule by denying the promotion to one or the other Engineers belonging to different cadres.

12. Today, four weeks‟ time again has been sought for. The excuse has been given by the learned State counsel that it is for the purpose of getting approval in the different Departments, thereafter, it will be sent to the Cabinet.

13. This Court, in the aforesaid backdrop, is of the view that the State Government is not taking sincere endeavour inspite

- 20 -

of the specific submission made to that effect by the learned Advocate General to bring the final Rule on record, as has been taken note in the order dated 15th September, 2025.

14. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the State for one reason or the other is delaying the matter reasons best known to the State.

15. This Court is further of the view that it is nothing, but the lethargic approach of the State. However, in the midst of proceeding, learned State counsel has got the telephonic instruction and as per the instruction received, the time has been sought for upto 06th November, 2025 for final approval of the Rule and to bring it on record by way of an affidavit.

16. This Court, before passing the further necessary order, is adjourning the matter by granting time upto 06th November, 2025, by way of last indulgence."

2. Today, at 10:30 A.M., when the cases have been taken up, learned Advocate General has pressed one interlocutory application being I.A. No.15196 of 2025, wherein four weeks‟ time has been sought for due to the reason that the Cabinet Secretariat and the Vigilance Department, State of Jharkhand, has made certain queries which need to be addressed.

3. This Court, taking into consideration the specific direction passed in the order dated 13.10.2025, has called upon the Secretary, Road Construction Department and the Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department to explain the issue as to why the rule has not been framed.

4. The Secretary, Road Construction Department has stated before this Court that some mistake has been crept up in the file as has been pointed out before sending it to the Cabinet. Thereafter, again the file has been sent to the parent department, i.e., Road Construction Department, 4 and after rectification it is to be sent to the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department and other departments, therefore, time has been sought for by filing interlocutory application.

5. However, objection has been made by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.

- 21 -

6. Since the State Government is in process and seeking time by way of last indulgence, as such, this Court is adjourning the matter to be listed after three weeks.

7. It is made clear that there will be no further adjournment on the ground which has been sought for in the last two occasions, as would be evident from the order dated 15th September, 2025 and 13th October, 2025.

8. This Court has already made observation in paragraphs 11 to 16 of the order dated 13.10.2025, particularly paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof, therefore, the same is not being repeated and the Court will proceed in pursuance to the order already passed on 13.10.2025.

9. List these cases on 04.12.2025.

10. Accordingly, I.A. No.15196 of 2025 stands disposed of .

41. In the backdrop of these facts, the matter has been

listed today i.e., 04.12.2025 but, instead of complying the

order passed by this Court, again one Interlocutory

Application being I.A. No. 16268 of 2025 has been filed

seeking further four weeks time making the ground as under

paragraph 4 of the said Interlocutory Application which has

been quoted in the preceding paragraph of this order.

42. Therefore, the question which requires consideration by

this Court that the present Interlocutory Application, which

fourth in series seeking extension of time for framing of

amended rule, for seeking adjournment in a situation of

approval of the draft by the Cabinet. In all the Interlocutory

Applications, filed earlier to the present one, the ground has

been taken that certain infirmities or queries, either made by

the JPSC or by one or the other departments of the State.

- 22 -

43. It needs to refer herein that the Rules is to be

formulated by the Department, which is headed by senior

officers of Indian Administrative Service Cadre holding the

post of Principal Secretary or the Additional Chief Secretary.

They are the senior bureaucrat officers in the State of

Jharkhand, then in such situation, how can it be accepted

by the Court of law that time and again the infirmities is

being crept up in taking final approval for the purpose of

sending the draft rule to the Cabinet for its approval. If that

be so, then this Court is constrained to criticize the State that

all such senior IAS Officials are having no legal acumen and

foresightedness in making drafts of the rule that too in a

situation that right from the year 2016 there is no rule for

recruitment/promotion of the posts of engineers, from the

promotional post of Executive Engineer, Superintending

Engineer, Chief Engineer and even the Engineer-in-Chief in

the Road Construction Department.

44. The question is that if the rule is not yet finalized right

from the year 2016, then how the Road Construction

Department is functioning.

45. This Court has been apprised that the interim

arrangements are being made by deputing one or the other

engineers even of the rank of Assistant Engineers to be

- 23 -

posted as Superintendent Engineer in the in-charge capacity

or current charge.

46. We are living in the constitutional set up wherein the

underlying principle is the good governance and if the officers

of the basic cadre are being posted as Superintending

Engineer or the Chief Engineer by allowing them to jump to

the next hierarchy cannot be considered to be the good

governance.

47. The instant Interlocutory Application [I.A. No. 16268 of

2025], seeking four weeks‟ time in the backdrop of the

aforesaid situation which is in fourth of series seeking

extension of time and matter since is pending since 2016, is

not fit to be allowed.

48. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application i.e.,

I.A. No. 16268 of 2025 is hereby rejected.

49. This Court is conscious that the under the provision of

Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is not appropriate

for the writ Court to issue command upon the State to come

out with any rule rather it is upon the wisdom of the State to

frame the Rule as per the need. But at the same time, it is

equally settled that when the Court is ceased with the matter,

it is not available for the State to mislead the Court of law

and if Court of law is coming to that impression, then

- 24 -

certainly the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised.

50. Further it requires to refer herein the settled position of

law that the said judicial restraint into the legislative domain

cannot and should not be such that it amounts to judicial

abdication and judicial passivism. The Judiciary cannot

abdicate the solemn duty which the Constitution has placed

on its shoulders and the Constitutional Courts cannot sit in

oblivion when rights of individuals are at stake. Our

Constitution has conceived the Constitutional Courts to act

as defenders against illegal intrusion of the rights of

individuals. The Constitution, under its aegis, has armed the

Constitutional Courts with wide powers which the Courts

should exercise, without an iota of hesitation or

apprehension, when the rights of individuals are in jeopardy,

reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by

Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Kalpana Mehta v. Union

of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1, relevant paragraph of the which is

being quoted as under:

45. At this juncture, we think it apt to clearly state that the judicial restraint cannot and should not be such that it amounts to judicial abdication and judicial passivism. The Judiciary cannot abdicate the solemn duty which the Constitution has placed on its shoulders i.e. to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The constitutional courts cannot sit in oblivion when fundamental rights of individuals are at stake. Our Constitution has

- 25 -

conceived the constitutional courts to act as defenders against illegal intrusion of the fundamental rights of individuals. The Constitution, under its aegis, has armed the constitutional courts with wide powers which the courts should exercise, without an iota of hesitation or apprehension, when the fundamental rights of individuals are in jeopardy. Elucidating on the said aspect, this Court in Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. [Virendra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 447] has observed : (AIR p. 454, para 34) "34. ... We have upon us the whole armour of the Constitution and walk from henceforth in its enlightened ways, wearing the breastplate of its protecting provisions and flashing the flaming sword of its inspiration."

51. In view of aforesaid factual aspect, discussion and

judicial pronouncement of Hon‟ble Apex Court, this Court

directs the State to come out with the proposed amended rule

within a period of two weeks‟ failing which this Court will

take suo moto cognizance by initiating contempt proceeding

against the erring officials/authorities.

52. It needs to refer herein that whatever has been stated by

learned Advocate General, as has been recorded in various

order passed by this Court, is the undertaking furnished by

the First Officer of the Court that is enough for initiating

proceeding against the Secretary/Principal Secretary of the

concerned department. It is not only that the Secretary, Road