[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Bikaram Mandal on 9 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:6088-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.314 of 2025
-----
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Road
Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi,
Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, Doranda,
Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, Doranda,
Ranchi.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, Doranda,
Ranchi.
5. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad Lohardaga, having its
office at M.G. Road, Near Menka Hall, Lohardaga.
.......... Appellants.
-Versus-
1. Bikaram Mandal, son of Sri Kuber Mandal, resident of village Kisan
Prasad, P.O. Rampur, P.S. Sahebganj, District-Sahebganj.
2. Anil Kumar Soren, son of Late Sonaram Soren, resident of village
Narayanpur, P.O. Kusumghati, P.S. Rajamati, District-Godda.
3. Kishore Kumar Murmu, son of Late Mahendra Murmu, resident of
village Belatikar, P.O. Baghamari, P.S. Devipur, District-Deoghar.
4. Binkos Khess, son of Sri Ilyajar Khess, resident of village Samsera,
P.O. Samsera, P.S. Bolba, District-Simdega.
5. Sushil Kumar Minz, son of Late Peka Minz, resident of village
Jhinjhri, Korambe, P.O. Korambe, P.S. Mandar, District-Ranchi.
6. Dhanay Jetha Kumar Horro, son of Late Subodh Kumar Horo,
resident of Mohalla-Lapa, P.O. Lapa, P.S. Karra, District-Khunti.
7. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi, Circular Road,
P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi, through its Chairman.
8. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi,
Circular Road, Kotwali, Ranchi.
9. Sandip Lakra.
10. Anil Kumar Besra.
2026:JHHC:6088-DB
11. Pyarelal Marandi.
12. Dilip Oraon.
13. Pritam Kumar Marandi.
Nos.9 to 12 posted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) at Road
Construction Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra,
A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
For the Res. Nos.1-6: Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amarendra Pradhan, Advocate
For the Res. Nos.7&8 Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Faisal Allam, Advocate
-----
Order No.07 Date: 09.03.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. I.A. No.4966 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 101 days in
instituting this appeal.
3. The reasons set out in the aforesaid I.A., in the peculiar facts of
the present case, constitute sufficient cause. The delay is also not
inordinate. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of this
I.A.
4. With the consent and at the request of learned counsel for the
parties, we have taken up the appeal for consideration.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-State submitted that, in
this matter, through a public advertisement, the officers were
called upon to produce documents such as vigilance clearance,
list of assets, etc., based on which their cases could be considered
for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant
Engineer (Civil).
2026:JHHC:6088-DB
6. The Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, despite such
notice by advertisement, since no such documents were
produced by the original petitioners (respondents nos.1 to 6
herein), their cases could not be considered for promotion. The
Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the decision in
the case of Government of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Dr
Amal Satpathi and Ors., (2024) SCC Online SC 3512 to
submit that the grant of any retrospective promotion would not
be proper. He submitted that promotion can be effective only
from the date on which it is granted.
7. The Learned counsel for the respondents (original petitioners),
however, submitted that there was no communication to the
petitioners to submit any documents. He pointed out that a letter
was addressed to the departmental head, but it was never
communicated to the petitioners. Without prejudice, he
submitted that most of the documents were already furnished,
and documents like vigilance clearance, etc., had to be furnished
by the concerned department of the appellants themselves. He
submitted that there is no error in the view taken by the learned
Single Judge in the impugned order and, therefore, this appeal
may be dismissed.
8. We have considered the rival contentions, and we are satisfied
that no case is made out to admit this appeal. The reasons for
this conclusion are set out briefly hereafter.
2026:JHHC:6088-DB
9. This is admittedly not a case where the original petitioners were
ineligible for promotion for lack of any qualifications, experience,
etc.
10. By a letter dated 29th August, 2022, issued by the Joint Secretary
to the departmental head, the departmental head was required
to call upon the original petitioners and other employees to
furnish certain details/documents regarding their service history,
character report, list of assets, etc. The record shows that this
letter, dated 29th August, 2022 or the request contained therein,
was never communicated to the original petitioners. There is a
finding of fact to this effect in paragraph no.10 of the learned
Single Judge's impugned order. Even the pleadings to this effect
were never denied by the appellants in their counter-affidavit.
11. Insofar as the public advertisement is concerned, the learned
Single Judge has referred to the principles under Order V Rule 20
of the CPC and ruled that substituted service through paper
publication cannot be resorted to in the very first instance and
that too, by a department against its own employees working in
the department. Even the principle of fairness required the
respondents to be given an adequate opportunity to produce
documents/information in their possession, assuming that such
documents/information were a necessary precondition for their
consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Civil).
12. Ultimately, it was found that the original petitioners were not only
eligible but also fulfilled the standards necessary for promotion
2026:JHHC:6088-DB
even after the furnishing of the details/information. Thus, for
hyper-technical considerations, for which the original petitioners
were really not to be blamed, they were denied their right to be
considered for promotion. It was in the above peculiar
circumstances that the learned Single Judge directed their
promotion effective from the date on which their juniors were
considered and granted promotion, along with all consequential
benefits.
13. The decision in Dr. Amal Sathpati (Supra) will not apply to a
situation of the present nature. This decision relies upon Bihar
State Electricity Board vs. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1768 at paragraph no.19, which is the paragraph
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-State.
14. Dharamdeo Das (Supra) holds that promotion is effective from
the date it is granted, not from the date a vacancy occurs in the
subject post or the post itself is created. Here, the original
petitioners are not claiming promotion from either the date of the
vacancy or the date the promotional post was created. They have
claimed and are now granted promotion only from the date on
which their juniors were considered and granted promotion.
15. Further, this is a case where the learned Single Judge's impugned
order has already been complied with by the appellants-State, no
doubt, subject to the outcome of this L.P.A. The order dated 19th
February, 2026, now produced before us, shows that the original
petitioners were not directly granted promotion; their cases were
placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
2026:JHHC:6088-DB
The DPC considered the matter and, upon doing so, found that
the original petitioners are entitled to be promoted from the date
their juniors were promoted. This is also not a case where the
principle of no work, no pay would apply, because the original
petitioners were always willing to work, but for reasons the
learned Single Judge correctly found arbitrary, they were denied
such promotion.
16. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that there is no merit
in this appeal and, consequently, we dismiss the same without
any order for costs.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
9th March, 2026
Sanjay/Rohit
Uploaded on 10.03.2026
