[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Devisal Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 January, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:2711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3621 of 2019
Devisal Hansda, Aged about 63 years, Son of Sri Karu Hansda, resident of
Vijaypur, P.O.. Bando Haripur, P.S.: Dumka (M), District: Dumka, Retired
from the post of Lecturer, Govt. Teachers' Training College, Deoghar
(Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand, at: Project Bhawan, PO. & P.S.: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi.
3 The Deputy Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, at: Project Bhawan, PO & PS: Dhurwa, District: Ranchi.
4.The Director, Secondary Education, School Education & Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, at: Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.: Dhurwa,
District: Ranchi. ... ... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II
--------
th
Order No. 12 /Dated: 29 January 2026
The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner
for the following reliefs:
"1(i)For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) /order(s) / direction(s), or a
writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated 23rd October, 2018
(Annexure 9), passed by the Secretary, School Education & Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, contained in Memo No. 339 dated
12.12.2018, whereby prayer for grant of exemption from passing
departmental examination has been rejected on the ground that the
petitioner did not comply the conditions stipulated in Letter no. 474 dated
May, 1992, issued by the department of Personnel, administrate Reforms,
Govt. of Bihar.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) /order(s) / direction(s), or a writ
in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated 1st March, 2019
(Annexure 10) passed by Secretary, School Education & Literacy
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, contained in Memo No. 688 dated 1st
March, 2019, whereby & where under the respondent no. 2 has rejected the
prayer of the petitioner for adding services rendered by him, as Assistant
Teacher, for the period 26th April, 1988, till 30th September, 1997 with
Bihar Education Services, for the purposes of pensionary benefits, on the
ground that services under education service is not confirmed as petitioner
did not pass the departmental examination and prayer for grant of
exemption from passing the Departmental Examination has been rejected.
2026:JHHC:2711
(iii) For passing an appropriate order/writ/direction, commanding upon the
respondents to grant exemption from passing of Departmental Examination,
as he had already completed 50 years of age on 18th of March, 2006 and
thereafter represented to competent authority for granting exemption from
appearing in Departmental Examination, which has been illegally rejected:
(iv) For providing benefits of Modified Assured Career Progression
(M.A.C.P.) and other monetary benefits, for which the petitioner is entitled,
after granting exemption from passing Departmental Examination;
(v) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) /order(s) / direction(s),
commanding upon the respondents to provide him the benefits of the
services rendered by him since 26.04.1988 till 30.09.1997, under Sub-
ordinate Education Services before joining the Bihar Education Service,
Class-II, in fixation of pension, gratuity, Leave Encashment etc.
AND/OR
For any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled to, in
the facts & circumstances of this case."
2. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.
3645 of 2014 wherein this Court had categorically held that since the
petitioner had crossed the age of 50 years, there was no occasion for the
petitioner to appear again in the departmental examination as per Rule. The
petitioner had rightly approached the respondent-authorities for giving the
relaxation as per Rule 1992 which was illegally rejected by the respondent-
authorities. For brevity paragraph no. 5 of the order dated 07.07.2017 passed
in W.P.(S) No. 3645 of 2014 is extracted hereinbelow:
"5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the
parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner
needs consideration. With regard to first prayer, there is a specific Rule for
examination to the employees, who have crossed 50 years and who have
appeared and declared unsuccessful. The petitioner appeared in the year,
2007 and at that time he had crossed the age of 50 years there was no
occasion for the petitioner to appear again in the said examination as per
Rule. The petitioner has rightly approached the respondent-authorities for
giving the said relaxation as per Rule 1992, which was illegally rejected by
the respondent-authorities."
3. It has been informed that the said order has attained finality in
view of the fact that neither any review application has been filed; nor any
appeal has been preferred by the State and now taking the same ground of
Rule 1992 by submitting that the petitioner has only appeared once in the
departmental examination and as per Rule 1992, any employee was supposed
to appear in departmental examination again and again and only then; if the
employee crosses the age of 50 years, he would be exempted from
examination.
2026:JHHC:2711
But this contention of the Respondents, now, is not sustainable
in view of specific finding made in paragraph no. 5 of the order referred to
hereinabove, which was decided in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 23.10.2018 at Anenxure-9 to the writ application which
gives reference of Rule 1992 does not make any sense.
4. Accordingly, impugned order dated 23.10.2018 at Anenxure-9,
is hereby, quashed and set aside and the concerned respondent is directed to
revisit with the order strictly in compliance to paragraph no. 5 of the order
passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3645 of 2014 and pass an order of
payment with differential pay and all consequential benefits.
5. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for clubbing of two services
is concerned, wherein the respondents vide order dated 01.03.2019 have
again taken a stand of non-passing of departmental examination, it is hereby
directed to revisit with the order in view of the fact that this Court has already
deliberated on the issue of passing of the examination and since the same
ground has been taken, the respondents are directed also to take a decision
with regard to clubbing of two services ignoring the ground of passing of the
departmental examination.
6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.
7. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
29th January 2026
Amit
Uploaded on 04/02/2026
