[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar & Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 13 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3495 of 2024
----
Pradeep Kumar & Anr. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 3508 of 2024
Rameshwar Sah & Anr. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Yash, Advocate
Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P. V
For the Resps. : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
Ms. Apurva Mehta, Advocate
: Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate
Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate
Ms. Akriti Shree, Advocate
--------
Order No. 38 : Dated 13th April, 2026
I.A. No. 3466 of 2026 in W.P. (S) No. 3495 of 2024
1. The instant Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of applicant
for his impleadment as party to the proceeding.
2. It has been contended on behalf of applicant that although the order of
promotion which has been granted in his favour on the post of Superintending
Engineer is not under challenge but out of the lis which is the subject matter of the
present case, will certainly affect his future prospect. Therefore, prayer has been
made for his impleadment in the present lis.
3. No written objection has been filed by the petitioners to the instant
application. However, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that there is no difficulty if opportunity of hearing is to
be given to the applicant even without allowing the instant application.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The admitted fact is that the order of promotion so far it relates to the
applicant is concerned, it is not under challenge but the issue which has been
raised in the present writ petition is having interest if any decision is taken adverse
to the interest of the applicant without impleadment of the party, the same will be
miscarriage of justice so far as the applicant of the instant Interlocutory
Application is concerned.
6. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the instant
Interlocutory Application is to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.3466 of
2026 stands allowed and disposed of.
8. Office is directed to make necessary addition in the cause title.
9. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he
is ready to argue the main matter.
W.P. (S) No. 3495 of 2024 & W.P. (S) No. 3508 of 2024
10. In course of argument, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners, has submitted that in view of the stand having been taken that
the Notification dated 02.02.2018 as contained in letter No.712/S as available in
Annexure-CA-5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.13
with the specific statement made at paragraph 13, the prayer so made for quashing
the notification dated 02.02.2018 is no longer available and, as such, it may be
rendered to be infructuous.
11. Considering such submission, the prayer No. 1(b) has been rendered to be
infructuous.
12. With reference to prayer no. 1(d), the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners has rightly submitted that notification is/are either dated
6.8.2019 or 21.10.204 or 11.1.2024 as Annexure 15,18 and 21 issued by the Road
Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand and he has only questioned
the promotion granted to the private respondents who have been arrayed as party
to the proceeding.
13. It has been pointed out by Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the private respondents that none of the public servant who have
been granted promotion by virtue of Notification dated 6.8.2019 have been arrayed
as private respondent.
14. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by Mr. Singh, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioners rather he has submitted that he is not
questioning the promotion granted by virtue of Notification dated 6.8.2019 in view
of the fact that none of the persons granted promotion have been arrayed as party
to the proceeding.
15. It has further been pointed out by Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior
counsel by referring to the notification dated 21.10.2022 which is also under
challenge that only one person, namely, Sri Vinay Kumar whose name figured at
serial no.16 of the Notification dated 21.10.2022 has been impleaded as party.
16. Mr. Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that there is no ambiguity in the prayer as he is questioning the
promotion granted to the following respondents who have been arrayed as party to
the proceeding:
Sl. Name of the Date of promotion to Date the Remarks
No Petitioners vis- the post of Executive promotion to the
. à-vis Engineer and post of
Respondents location of Superintending
and party documents Engineer and
position location of
documents
1 Pradeep Kumar 01.12.2014 (Annexure-3 ---- Note:-
(Petitioner No. 1) Series, Sl. No. 73) Junior to the
Page-157 petitioners
have been
promoted to
the post of
Superintendi
ng Engineer
on
06.08.2019,
21.10.2022
&Y
11.1.2024
2 Ram Badan Singh 01.12.2014 (Annexure-3 ---- Do
(Petitioner No.2) Series, Sl. No. 76)
Page-157
3 Vinay Kumar 3.07.2015(Annexure-19, 21.10.2022
(Respondent No.6) Sl. No. 4) Page 218 (Annexure-18, Sl.
No. 16) Page 215
4 Devashish Lehri 04.08.2022 (Annexure- 11.01.2024
(Respondent No.7) 21/1, Sl. No. 1) Page 231 (Annexure-21, Sl.
No.1) Page 226
5 Satyendra Prasad 04.08.2022 (Annexure- 11.01.2024
Singh 21/1, Sl. No.4) Page 231 (Annexure-21, Sl.
(Respondent No.8) No. 4)Page 226
6 Abhinendra Kumar 04.08.2022 (Annexure- 11.01.2024
(Respondent no.9) 21/1, Sl. No. 5) Page 231 (Annexure-21, Sl.
No. 5)Page 227
7 Saifullah Ansari 04.08.2022 (Annexure- 11.01.2024
(Respondent No.10) 21/1, Sl. No. 8) Page 231 (Annexure-21, Sl.
No. 8)Page 227
8 Santosh Kumar 21.10.2022(Annexure- 11.01.2024
(Respondent No.11) 21/1, Sl. No. 13) Page (Annexure-21, Sl.
9 Kundal Kumar 21.10.2022(Annexure- 11.01.2024
(Respondent no. 21/1, Sl. No. 17) Page (Annexure-21, Sl.
12) 231 No. 17)Page 229
10 Jaikant Ram 21.10.2022(Annexure- 11.01.2024
(Respondent no.13) 21/1, Sl. No. 18) Page (Annexure-21, Sl.
11 Sunil Kumar Rajak 21.10.2022(Annexure- 11.01.2024
(Respondent no.14) 21/1, Sl. No. 19) Page (Annexure-21, Sl.
12 Vijay Kumar Das 21.10.2022(Annexure- 11.01.2024
(Respondent no.15) 21/1, Sl. No. 21) Page (Annexure-21, Sl.
13. Kumar 21.10.2022(Annexure- 11.01.2024
Krishnanand Das 21/1, Sl. No. 23) Page (Annexure-21, Sl.
(Respondent no.16) 231 No. 23)Page 230
17. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Das,
learned counsel for the petitioners have argued the matter at length.
18. Due to paucity of time, hearing could not be concluded.
19. With consent of the parties, list these cases on 18th April, 2026.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
13th April, 2026
Alankar/Birendra/Nibha/Sonu/-
