Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Chandra Sharma Son Of Late Radha ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 26 September, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:30377-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 1190 of 2025
Suresh Chandra Sharma son of Late Radha Krishna Singh aged
about 76 years, rtd. Inspector Legal Metrology, resident of 300 A/R
Devi Nivas, Surya Vihar Colony, CMRI Main Gate, Bartand VTC,
P.O.-Dhanbad, P.S.-Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Dept. of Consumer Affairs,
Ministry of Food and Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs,
Krishi Bhawan, P.O. Central Delhi, P.S.- Krishi Vawan, New Delhi
2. The State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Govt of
Jharkhand Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. The Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution &
Consumer Affairs Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Project
Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
4. Director, Department of Food & Consumer Affairs, 3rd Floor, JSFC
Building, Kadru, P.O. Doranda, P.S.- Argora, District-Ranchi
5. Shri Vijay Bahadur Gupta, son of Rang Lal Gupta, Assistant
Controller, Legal Metrology, Department of Food, Public
Distribution & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at
Kanke, P.O.-Kanke Block, P.S.- Kanke, Govt of Jharkhand,
Ranchi, permanent resident of Dandwa, P.O. & P.S. Mohania,
Sub-Division-Mohania, District-Kaimur ( Bhabua) Bihar
... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG
---------
03/Dated: 26.09.2025
1) Heard.
2) The instant public interest litigation has been filed for grant of
following reliefs:
i For issuance of appropriate writ, order/orders,
direction/directions to declare serial No.2 of Group D
of Rule 8.2 which is minimum qualification for the
Legal Metrology Officers Weights and Measures and
2025:JHHC:30377-DB
Sl. No.4 of Schedule-1 i.e minimum qualification of
the Legal Metrology Officers Weights and Measures
of Category B of Jharkhand Agriculture Service
(Recruitment And Promotion) Rules, 2013 [झारख
कृिष सेवा (भत एवं ो ित) िनयमावली. 2013 ( Annexure-3)
as Ultra virus as the State Govt has added Agriculture
Graduate in addition to prescribed qualification which
is not in consonance with the Central Rules i.e. Rule
28(1) of the Legal Metrology (General) Rules, 2011
and Jharkhand State Rules i.e. Rule 21(1) of the
Jharkhand Legal Metrology (Enforcement) Rules
2011 [झारख िविधक माप िव ान ( वतन) िनयमावली
2011].
ii For quashing/set-aside the serial no.3 of the
Notification no. 2894 dated 16.03.2022 wherein and
where under the respondent no.5 who is Agriculture
Graduate has been appointed as Assistant Controller,
Legal Metrology, Ranchi which is apparent violation of
the Central rules i.e. the Legal Metrology (General)
Rules, 2011 and Jharkhand State Rules i.e Rule 21(1)
of the Jharkhand Legal Metrology (Promotion) Rules
2011 [झारख िविधक माप िव ान ( वतन) िनयमावली
2011].
3) It would be evident from the instant petition that the petitioner is
a retired Inspector from the Legal Metrology, Department of
Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs, Govt. of
Jharkhand and has sought direction to declare Sl. No. 2 of
Group D of Rule 8.2 which is minimum qualification for the
Legal Metrology Officers Weights and Measures and Serial No.
4 of Schedule-1 i.e. minimum qualification of the Legal
Metrology Officers Weights and Measures of Category B of
Jharkhand Agriculture Service ( Recruitment and Promotion)
2025:JHHC:30377-DB
Rules, 2013 to be ultra vires as the State Government has
added Agriculture Graduate in addition to the prescribed
qualification which according to the petitioner is not in
consonance with the Central Rules i.e. Rule 28(1) of the Legal
Metrology( General) Rules, 2011 and Jharkhand State Rules
i.e. Rule 21(1) of the Jharkhand Legal Metrology ( Enforcement)
Rules 2011.
4) In sum and substance, the instant petition is in the nature of
public interest as the petitioner (a retired employee) has not
claimed any relief for himself. In a service matter, the petitioner
cannot be termed to be an aggrieved person since he has
already retired and, moreover, it is more than settled that public
interest litigation does not lie in service matter. Reference in this
regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v.
Jitendra Mishra reported in 1998(7)SCC 273.
5) Accordingly, the present petition is held to be not maintainable
and dismissed accordingly.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
26.09.2025
Sharda/MM/
Cp.02
