Jharkhand High Court

Dr. Arun Nath Deogharia vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 10 September, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

                                                             2025:JHHC:27569


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No.4936 of 2025
                                   ------
    Dr. Arun Nath Deogharia, Son of Late Kalindra Nath Deogharia, aged
    about 68 years, R/o Indrapuri Road No.6 Ratu Road, PO Hehal & PS-
    Sukhdeo Nagar District, Ranchi, 834005
                                                 ... ... Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
    1.     The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of
           Higher and Technical Education, Nepal House, PO & PS-
           Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi.
    2.     The Director, Department of Higher and Technical Education,
           Government of Jharkhand having it office at Nepal House, PO
           & PS- Doranda, Dist-Ranchi.
    3.     Ranchi University, through its Registrar having its office at
           Ranchi University Campus, PO-GPO, PS-Kotwali, Dist.-
           Ranchi.
    4.     The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its
           Secretary PO & PS Circular Road, District Ranchi, 834001.
                                                 ... ... Respondent(s)
                                   ------
                      CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Deepika Jojowar, AC to SC-VI Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate

------

         th
02/ 10        September,2025

     1.            Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is seeking promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Associate Professor.

3. The petitioner was employed as a Lecturer vide appointment letter dated 10.07.1985, after undergoing all the procedural formalities at Karmchand Bhagat College, Bero a constituent Unit of Ranchi University. The services of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f., 20.07.1985 by the Ranchi University in compliance with the order dated 31.07.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4021 of 1995 which was filed by the employees of the affiliated colleges prohibiting the University from terminating nearly 4000 employees working in different colleges. The Said order was

2025:JHHC:27569

challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6098 of 1997. After bifurcation of State of Jharkhand vide order dated 12.10.2001, Justice S.C. Agrawal Commission was formed which submitted a detailed report on 19.12.2003 and based on the said report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State Government. In compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Ranchi University provisionally absorbed the services of the petitioner w.e.f., 31.10.1986. Ultimately, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2022.

4. In the light of petitioner's continuance in service and subsequent regularization, petitioner prays for promotion from the post of Lecturer to the post of Associate Professor.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has superannuated. Fact remains that the petitioner is praying to be promoted to a particular post. This is not an upgradation of scale as in-situ promotion.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Government of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors." reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3512, has held that there cannot be a retrospective promotion. It is necessary to quote Para No.19 of the said judgment which is hereunder:-

"19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das9, wherein it was observed as follows:

"18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty11 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three-Judge Bench observed thus:

41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below:

'4....... There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously

2025:JHHC:27569

unjustified.'

42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27:

'Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right.

22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the 'State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws'. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: 'there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State'. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense "equality of opportunity" in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word "employment"

being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be "considered" for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be "considered" for promotion, which is his personal right. "Promotion" based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1).

***

27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being "considered" for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be "considered" for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.' "20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath15, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P.17, in the following words:

'37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits......

38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when

2025:JHHC:27569

an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime." (emphasis supplied)

7. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and as the petitioner has already superannuated, there cannot be a retrospective promotion. Thus, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.