Jharkhand High Court
Anju Kachhap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 71 of 2025
1. Anju Kachhap
2. Sohan Lal Hembram
3. Neeharika Bakhla ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill
Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi
5. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary, Ranchi
6. Manisha Rani Toppo ... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA
For the Respondent-JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
-----
04/01.07.2025 Heard both sides.
2. Advertisement No. 13/2017 was published by the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission for filling up the posts of
Assistant Professors (backlog) in B.I.T. Sindri.
3. The eligible criteria prescribed for appointment to the
said posts of Assistant Professors in the Engineering colleges was
mentioned in Clause 6 of the said advertisement
4. The said clause stated that for appointment of the
Assistant Professors, the criteria is to be decided on the basis of
the academic record & research performance, evaluation of
domain knowledge as well as interview and the total marks were
to be given out of 100.
5. The said clause further stated that in case the
Commission does not receive sufficient numbers (3 times the
vacancies) of application forms from applicants who have valid
GATE/NET/SLET/SET (as applicable) scores, then the
Commission will conduct a written examination for the
candidates, who have applied for the posts. This condition is
imposed as per Jharkhand Technical Education Services Rules,
2013 as amended in 2015.
6. In the instant case, for appointment on the posts of
Assistant Professors in the engineering colleges in the Chemical
Engineering branch, 9 posts were advertised.
7. So if the Commission did not receive application from
27 persons, who had a valid GATE/NET/SLET/SET scores, then
the Commission had to conduct a written examination for the
candidates, who had applied for the said posts, as per the said
rules and also Advertisement.
8. According to the counsel for the J.P.S.C., the number
of applicants for 26 posts of Assistant Professors in the Chemical
Engineering branch who passed GATE, was less than 27.
Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Commission to conduct
the written examination as per the rule and the advertisement
referred to supra.
9. However, the Commission did not conduct such
examination in spite of the mandate of the said rule and the
Advertisement.
10. The counsel contends that a meeting with certain
Government officials was held by members of the Commission on
22.06.2022 and in that meeting it was left to Government to fill
up the posts by granting relaxation of the rule referred to above;
and that on the basis of that recommendation, the State
Government appointed 8 persons without the J.P.S.C. having
conducted the written examination.
11. The counsel for the appellants contends that it was
the duty of the J.P.S.C. to conduct the examination as per rule
and the Advertisement; that the J.P.S.C. has no business to make
recommendation of any name for purpose of making
appointment to the Government without conducting the written
examination as aforesaid; and the State Government has no
business to make any appointment de-hors the rules.
12. He also contends that the respondent-State as well
as respondent-J.P.S.C. cannot change the rules of the game after
the game has started. He placed reliance on a judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of "Tej Prakash
Pathak and Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors."
reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1.
13. This legal position is not disputed by learned counsel
for the respondents.
14. In this view of the matter, counsel for the J.P.S.C. as
well as the State Government shall furnish learned counsel for
the appellants the details of 8 persons, who have been appointed
on the post of Assistant Professor in Chemical Engineering
branch by the respondents because the appointment of the said
persons appears to be contrary to law.
15. List this case on 13.08.2025.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish/Ritesh
