Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Manisha Rani Toppo & Another vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4345 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4345 Jhar
Judgement Date : 30 June, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Manisha Rani Toppo & Another vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 30 June, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                L.P.A. No. 40 of 2025
            Manisha Rani Toppo & Another
                                                      ... ... ... ... Appellants
                                     Versus
            The State of Jharkhand & Others         ... ... ... Respondents
                                            -----

CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Appellants: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the State: Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA For the J.P.S.C.: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate

-----

05/30.06.2025

1. Heard both sides.

2. Advertisement no. 5/2017 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 Telecommunication

Branch, 3 posts were advertised.

7. So if the Commission did not receive application from 9 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 learned counsel for the J.P.S.C., the number of

applicants for 3 posts of Assistant Professors in the

Telecommunication Engineering branch was less than 9. 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 1 person without the J.P.S.C. having conducted the

written examination.

11. Learned 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 and Others" 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, learned counsel for the J.P.S.C. as well

as the State Government shall furnish learned counsel for the

appellants the details of Sri Praveen Kumar Sahu, who has been

appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in Telecommunication

Engineering branch by the respondents because the appointment

of the said person appears to be contrary to law.

15. List this case on 13.08.2025.




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



Satish/Vikas/-                                         (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter