Jharkhand High Court

Manoj Oraon vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 30 June, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                             2025:JHHC:17098-DB & 2025:JHHC:17099-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      W.P. (S) No. 2287 of 2025
   Manoj Oraon, aged about 33 years, son of Panno Uraon, resident of village
   and P.O. Nagra, P.S. Mandar, District-Ranchi,(Jharkhand)-835205
                       ...    ...    ...    ...    ...     ...   Petitioner
                              Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
   and Climate Change, Government of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
   Jorbagh Road, P.O.-Lodhi Road, P.S. Tughlak Road Police Station, New
   Delhi-110002.
2. Director, Forest Education, Government of India, Ministry of Environment,
   Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, New Forest, Dehradun,
   P.O. New Forest, P.S. Garhi Cantt. District-Dehradun (Uttarakhand)-248006,
   Phone No. 01352750127, Email [email protected]
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest
   Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Doranda,
   Ranchi, P .O.+P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834002;
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
   and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P .O.+P.S -
   Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834004;
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning and Finance, Government
   of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
   (Jharkhand)-834004;
6. The Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand,
   Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S. -Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834004;
7. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road,
   Ranchi- P.O. G.P.O, Ranchi + P.S. - Lalpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-
   834001
8. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular
   Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi+ P.S.- Lalpur, District-Ranchi
   ( Jharkhand)-834001                   ...    ...   Respondents
                                 And
                      W.P.(S) No. 2882 of 2025
   Satyam Garg, aged about 31 years, son of Anand Kumar Tiwari, Resident of
   Ward No. 10, Village- Chetna and P.O. Garhwa, P.S. Garhwa, District-
   Garhwa, (Jharkhand)-822114                   ...      ...  Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest
   and Climate Change, Government of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,




                              -1 of 5-   W.P. (S) No. 2287 of 2025 & W.P. (S) No. 2882 of 2025
                                                              2025:JHHC:17098-DB & 2025:JHHC:17099-DB




   Jorbagh Road, P.O.-Lodhi Road, P.S. Tughlak Road Police Station, New
   Delhi-110002.
2. Director, Forest Education, Government of India, Ministry of Environment,
   Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, New Forest, Dehradun,
   P.O. New Forest, P.S. Garhi Cantt. District-Dehradun (Uttarakhand)-248006,
   Phone No. 01352750127, Email [email protected]
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest
   Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Doranda,
   Ranchi, P .O.+P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834002;
4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms
   and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P .O.+P.S -
   Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834004;
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning and Finance, Government
   of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
   (Jharkhand)-834004;
6. The Principal Secretary, Department of Law, Government of Jharkhand,
   Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O.+P.S. -Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834004;
7. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road,
   Ranchi- P.O. G.P.O, Ranchi + P.S. - Lalpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)-
   834001
8. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular
   Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi+ P.S.- Lalpur, District-Ranchi (
   Jharkhand)-834001                       ...    ...   Respondents


   CORAM:           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                           ---------
   For the Petitioner         :    Mr. Nand Kishore Singh, Advocate
                                   Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                   [ In WP(S) No. 2287 of 2025]
                                   Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
                                   Mr. Ram Badan Choubey, Advocate
                                   [ In WP(S) No. 2882 of 2025]
   For the Respondent-UoI :        Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I.
                                   Mrs. Niki Sinha, CGC
                                   [ In both the cases]
   For the Respondent-State :      Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG
                                   [ In WP(S) No. 2287 of 2025]
                                   Md. Shahabuddin, SC-VII
                                   Mr. Suraj Prakash, AC to SC-VII
                                   [ In WP(S) No. 2882 of 2025]
   For the Respondent-JPSC:        Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                                   Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
                                   [ In WP(S) No. 2287 of 2025]

                              -2 of 5-   W.P. (S) No. 2287 of 2025 & W.P. (S) No. 2882 of 2025
                                                             2025:JHHC:17098-DB & 2025:JHHC:17099-DB




                                      Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
                                      Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
                                      Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
                                      Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
                                      [ In WP(S) No. 2882 of 2025]

                           --------
WP(S) No. 2287 of 2025
Reserved on: 24.06.2025
WP(S) No. 2882 of 2025
Reserved on 25.6.2025
                                        Pronounced on:                  30 / 06 /2025
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral)

1) In these Writ Petitions, petitioners challenge clause (4) of Rule 8 and

also sub clause (iii) of Clause (A) of the said Rule 8 of the Jharkhand Range

Forest Officers Service (Recruitment, Promotion and other Conditions of

Service) Rules,2024.

2) These rules have been framed by the State of Jharkhand after

repealing the previous rules framed in the year 2018.

3) The principal contention of the petitioner is that these rules are

contrary to the Rule 8 of the Entrance and Training Rules 2004 for the Forest

Range Officers framed by the Central Government in consultation with the

respective State Governments.

4) The Petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2287 of 2025 possesses a qualification

of B.Sc in Information Technology. He joined the service of Forest Guard

under the respondents/State authorities in 2014.

5) In 2024 an advertisement no. 4 of 2024 was issued for appointment to

170 posts of the Range Forest Officers and the qualifications prescribed inter

alia possession of a degree in Civil, Mechanical, Chemical Engineering from

any recognized university. Similar qualification was also prescribed in

another advertisement no. 3 of 2024 for appointment to 78 posts of Assistant

Conservator of Forest.

-3 of 5- W.P. (S) No. 2287 of 2025 & W.P. (S) No. 2882 of 2025 2025:JHHC:17098-DB & 2025:JHHC:17099-DB

6) Admittedly, the Rules in question were framed under proviso to

Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the State of Jharkhand. It may be

that the rules framed by the Central Government for the Entrance and

Training purposes in 2004 prescribed something different from what the

impugned Rules prescribed as eligibility criteria.

7) No precedent is cited by the counsel for the petitioner to show as to

why the Rules framed by the Central Government should bind the State

Government when the posts in question are within the purview of the State

Government.

8) Also, counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that Courts do not have

expertise in going into the educational qualification prescribed for filling up

the particular post. Time and again the Supreme Court of India has held that

matters of these natures are not within the purview of the Courts and unless

serious infirmities in the prescription of qualification are established,

normally Court should not interfere in this aspect.

9) In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad1, the

Supreme Court held that prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter

of recruitment policy; the State as an employer is entitled to prescribe the

qualifications as a condition of eligibility; and it is no part of the role or

function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed

qualifications

10) In Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das2 also it was held as

under:

" 17.3 ... it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the

(2019) 2 SCC 404

(2021) 12 SCC 80, at page 89

-4 of 5- W.P. (S) No. 2287 of 2025 & W.P. (S) No. 2882 of 2025 2025:JHHC:17098-DB & 2025:JHHC:17099-DB

courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an institution or an industry or an establishment as the case may be. The courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts."

11) The decision is Cellular operators Association of India and others v.

Telecom regulatory Authority of India 3 cited by the counsel for the

petitioner deals with the tests for challenge to plenary legislation on the

ground of violation of Art.19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The

decision in Kerala State Electricity Board and Others v. Thomas Joseph

and others4 cited by counsel for petitioners considers the limits of delegated

legislation and states that it should not travel beyond the purview of the

parent Act, and if it does, it would be ultra vires. How these judgments are

attracted to the instant case is not explained by counsel for petitioners.

12) In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these writ

petitions. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)