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

Madhusudan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 161 Jhar

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 161 Jhar
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Madhusudan Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2026

Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
                                                               2026:JHHC:730




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         W.P.(S) No.943 of 2023
                                    ------
   Madhusudan Kumar, son of Ramchandra Prasad, resident of
   Bhagaiya, Thakur Gangti, P.O. & P.S. Thakur Gangti, District Godda.
                                                      ... ... Petitioners
                                   Versus
   1. The State of Jharkhand.
   2. The Principal Secretary, Employment & Training Department,
       Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.
       Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
   3. The General Manager, District Industry Center, Godda, P.O. & P.S.
       Godda, District Godda.
   4. The In-Charge, Saheed Nirmal Mahto, Jharkhand Resham
       Training Institute, Bhagaiya, P.O. & P.S. Thakur Gangti, District
       Godda.
   5. The Managing Director, Jharkhand Silk Textile and Handicraft
       Development Corporation Limited, office at Ratu Road, P.O. &
       P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi.
                                                    ... ... Respondents
                                    ------
              CORAM         : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : None present. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate

------

14/ 12.01.2026

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner even on second

call. Heard learned counsel representing respondents and gone

through the writ petition.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a

direction upon the respondents to initiate a process of employment

and thereafter by completing the said process, appoint the petitioner.

3. From the writ petition, I find that the petitioner had

undergone a training programme under the Central Silk Technology

Research Institute, Government of India. After completion of the

training, the petitioner worked as a Master Trainer in the "Saheed

Nirmal Mahto Jharkhand Resham Training Institute, Bhagaiya,

2026:JHHC:730

Godda", under the Government of Jharkhand, for the period

11.04.2007 to 02.10.2009. He was sent for training including

training at Ahmedabad.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents should

initiate a process to appoint the petitioner on regular basis, for which

this writ petition has been filed.

5. Whether to initiate an appointment process or to fill up

the vacancy, if any, is the prerogative of the employer. No Court can

issue mandamus directing the respondents to initiate a process of

appointment.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Assam v. Arabinda Rabha reported in (2025) 7 SCC 705, at

para-39, has held as follows:-

"39. It cannot be gainsaid that the factors of "when", "which", "what", "who" and "how" that are associated with a recruitment/selection process is the prerogative of the recruiting authority and the selectors; however, at the same time, the process has to be conducted consistent with statutory provisions governing the same, if any, as well as principles of absolute fairness and complete non- arbitrariness. Though it is true that the law does not postulate a fetter on the authority of the employer State and it is within the domain of the Government when to initiate a process of recruitment for public employment, either according to recruitment rules or even in the absence thereof, it is for the Government of the day to decide in which manner it proposes to conduct selection, what would be the various stages the candidates aspiring for appointment

2026:JHHC:730

have to pass through in order to be placed in the select list, who would be the selectors, and how weightage is to be given to each of the testing methods, a great deal of credence is lent to a process if it is fairly and transparently conducted in accordance with rules, whatever be its source, without the slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism. Normally, it is not for the courts to interfere unless the process smacks of mala fides. ..."

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Arabinda Rabha (supra), since no mandamus can be issued in this

case, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

12th January, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2

Uploaded on 14.01.2026

 
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