Jharkhand High Court
Amit Kumar vs The Union Of India on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6057 of 2025
---------
Amit Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Arun Kumar Jha, resident of
Baneshwar Nagar, Southside Road Emnating Nagar, Pragya Kendra and
Shiva Mandir, Chutia Namkum Ghat Road, Namkum, P.O. Namkum, P.S.
Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary (Posts) and Chairman, Postal
Service Board, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, P.O. Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.S. New Delhi-110001, District New Delhi.
2. The Director General (DE), Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, P.O. Dak Bhawan, P.S.-New Delhi- 110001, District New Delhi.
3. The Member (Personnel) Postal Services Board, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, P.O. + P.S. -Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001,
District New Delhi.
4. The Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda,
District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand.
5. The Director, Postal Service, Jharkhand Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. The Assistant Director of Postal Services (Personnel), Jharkhand Circle,
P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Ranchi Division, P.O. Ranchi
G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kashish Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, D.S.G.I.
Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, C.G.C.
-----------
CAV/Reserved on 09.04.2026 Pronounced on 21/04/2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
directed against the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in O.A. No.
OA/051/00315/2021 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi whereby and whereunder, the
Page | 1
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
original application has been dismissed declining to pass positive direction
in favour of the writ petitioner.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition
having been enumerated from the original application needs to be referred
here which reads as under:
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the LDC
Examination for promotion to the cadre of Inspector Posts for the year
2015-16 bearing Roll No.1100032 under unreserved (UR) quota held on
22.10.2016 & 23.10.2016. There were three unreserved vacant post in
Jharkhand Circle. The result of the LDC was declared on 21.06.2017.
4. The petitioner having obtained 786 marks ranked 4th as per the combined
merit list in the Jharkhand Circle. Since there were three vacancies in
Inspector Posts (IP) cadre under UR category in Jharkhand Circle for the
year 2015-16, he did not come in the zone of selection to the extent of
notified vacancies i.e., 3. The last selected candidate i.e. Uttam Kumar had
obtained 792 marks.
5. Prior to declaration of the result of the LDC examination of 2015-16 i.e.
21.06.2017, the Tribunal passed an order dt. 21.04.2017 in OA No.
051/00174/2016 (Kumar Abhishek Vs UOI & Ors) and directed the
respondents to include the name of Kumar Abhishek in LDC examination,
2014 for promotion of the Inspector posts.
6. Therefore, declaration of the result of Kumar Abhishek again for the year
2015-16 as per letter dt. 21.06.2017 ignoring the merit of the petitioner is
Page | 2
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
undue and against the recruitment rules. Finally, Kumar Abhishek was
accommodated in the revised and recast merit list in LDC Examination,
Inspector Post 2014 of Jharkhand Circle as per Postal Directorate letter dt.
17.08.2017.
7. The petitioner submitted his representation dt. 28.08.2017 to the
respondent no.1 and his claim was rejected vide order dt. 04.12.2017.
Thereafter, he submitted an appeal dt. 13.12.2017 before respondent no.1.
8. Feeling aggrieved with the decisions of the respondents, applicant filed
OA No. 544 of 2018 before the Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of
vide order dated 11.09.2018 with observation that as the appeal is stated
to be pending before respondent no. 1, the said OA is disposed of without
entering into the merit of the case with direction to respondent no. 1 that
if any such appeal is still pending consideration then the same may be
considered keeping in mind the benefit granted to other similarly situated
candidates as mentioned in the OA. After such consideration if the
petitioner’s grievance is found to be genuine then the respondents are
directed to consider the case of the petitioner for similar benefits as has
been granted to other similarly situated candidates as mentioned above
within a period of six weeks of receipt of this order.
9. Since the date of appeal i.e. 26.08.2017 was inadvertently typed in place
of 13.12.2017 in 9th & 13th line of page 3rd & in 4th line in the final order.
The same was corrected vide order dt. 23.08.2019 passed in MA No.
309/2019 in CP No. 112/2019 arising out of OA No. 544/2018.
10. In pursuance of the Tribunal’s order 23.08.2019 passed in MA No.
309/2019 in OA No. 544/2018 order dt. 11.09.2018 passed in OA No.
Page | 3
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
544/2018, the representation dt. 13.12.2017 of petitioner considering the
case with objectivity, he did not find any merit in the representation dt.
13.12.2017 of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dt.
28.01.2020.
11. Aggrieved with the order dated 28.01.2020, the petitioner preferred O.A.
No.051/00315/2021 before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal.
12. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi
considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties had dismissed
the original application being O.A. No.051/00315/2021 vide order dated
29.10.2024.
13. It is evident as per the pleading made as referred hereinabove that the
petitioner appeared in the LDC Examination for promotion to the cadre of
Inspector Posts for the year 2015-16 under unreserved (UR) quota and
there were three unreserved vacant post in Jharkhand Circle. The result of
the LDCE was declared on 21.06.2017.
14. The petitioner obtained 786 marks and ranked 4th as per the combined
merit list in the Jharkhand Circle. Since there were three vacancies in
Inspector Posts (IP) cadre under UR category in Jharkhand Circle for the
year 2015-16, he did not come in the zone of selection to the extent of
notified vacancies i.e., 3. The last selected candidate i.e. Uttam Kumar had
obtained 792 marks.
15. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to declaration of the result of the
LDCE of 2015-16 i.e. 21.06.2017, the Tribunal passed an order dt.
21.04.2017 in OA No. 051/174/2016 (Kumar Abhishek Vs UOI & Ors)
Page | 4
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
directing the respondents to include the name of Kumar Abhishek in
LDCE, 2014 for promotion of the Inspector posts.
16. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted his representation dt. 26.08.2017 to
the respondent no. 1 and his claim was rejected vide order dt. 04.12.2017.
Thereafter, he submitted an appeal dt. 13.12.2017 before respondent no.1.
17. Feeling aggrieved with the decisions of the respondents, applicant filed
OA No. 544 of 2018 before the Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of
vide order dated 11.09.2018 with observation that as the appeal dated
13.12.2017 is stated to be pending before respondent no. 1, the said OA is
disposed of without entering into the merit of the case with direction to
respondent no. 1 that if any such appeal is still pending consideration then
the same may be considered keeping in mind the benefit granted to other
similarly situated candidates.
18. In pursuance of the Tribunal’s order 23.08.2019 passed in MA No.
309/2019 in OA No. 544/2018 order dt. 11.09.2018 passed in OA No.
544/2018, the representation dt. 13.12.2017 of petitioner considering the
case with objectivity, he did not find any merit in the representation dt.
13.12.2017 of the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dt.
28.01.2020.
19. Aggrieved with the order dated 28.01.2020, the petitioner preferred O.A.
No.051/00315/2021 before the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal.
20. The written statement was filed defending the decision so taken by the
respondent.
21. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi
considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties had dismissed
Page | 5
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
the original application being O.A. No.051/00315/2021 vide order dated
29.10.2024.
22. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this writ petition.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
23. Mr. Kashish Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the
following grounds:
(i) The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact of
applicability of the vacancy for the vacancy year 2015-16 after
appointment of one of the candidates, namely, Kumar Abhishek
who although was the candidate for the vacancy year 2014 but
having not been selected, moved to the learned Tribunal and in
pursuance of the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the learned
Tribunal in O.A. No.051/174/2016 [Kumar Abhishek vs. UOI &
Ors.] he was appointed to the vacancy of the year 2014 making
place of one vacancy in which the petitioner ought to have been
appointed being 4th in number in the merit list as also availability of
the vacancy after shifting of Kumar Abhishek. But, the aforesaid
aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the
learned Tribunal and as such, the order passed by the learned
Tribunal suffers from error.
(ii) It has been contended that the learned Tribunal has also not
appreciated that the total number of vacancies for the year 2015-16
which was 03 as per the notified vacancy in the advertisement in
question but the aforesaid fact has been ignored depriving the
Page | 6
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]petitioner from the benefit of his appointment even though he has
secured 786 marks and numbered 4th in rank in the merit list
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that the impugned order, therefore, needs interference.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:
25. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, learned DSGI appearing for the
respondents has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned
order:
(i) It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into
consideration the fact that the petitioner has rightly not been
appointed since he has secured lesser marks and further on the
ground of the selection process having been completed.
(ii) It has been submitted that merely because one of the candidates has
been shifted from the vacancy year 2015-16 to vacancy year 2014,
no right is being conferred upon the petitioner for being appointed.
It has been further submitted by filing the decision taken by the
respondent authority that actually there were 03 vacancies as it was
notified in the advertisement but subsequent to shifting of Kumar
Abhishek by the order passed by the learned Tribunal for the
vacancy year 2014 one vacancy upon which the said Kumar
Abhishek was to be appointed in pursuance of the order passed by
the Tribunal has been shifted to the vacancy year 2014 leading to
reduction in the number of vacancies from 03 to 02 which is evident
from the note as available/evident at Anx. – D and Anx. – G as
brought on record by way of counter affidavit.
Page | 7
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
(iii) It has been contended that the petitioner, even after shifting of
Kumar Abhishek from the vacancy year 2015-16 to the vacancy
year 2014, he ranks at sl. No.03, as such, the two vacancies which
were available in consequence of shifting of vacancy in compliance
of the order passed by the learned Tribunal for the vacancy year
2015-16, the petitioner has got no right to be appointed beyond the
number of vacancy.
26. Learned counsel for the respondents, based upon the aforesaid grounds
has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore,
needs no interference.
Response:
27. In response to the ground as has been agitated on behalf of the respondent,
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the document upon
which the respondent is now relying, the same was not placed before the
learned Tribunal and as such, the same may not be allowed to be taken
into consideration.
Analysis
28. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order.
29. The fact which is not in dispute in the present case is that one Kumar
Abhishek was the candidate for the vacancy year 2014 but for one reason
or the other, he was not appointed. He was compelled to approach the
learned Tribunal by filing original application being O.A.
NO.051/174/2016 which was decided on 21.04.2017 with a direction upon
the respondent to decide the case of the said Kumar Abhishek but in the
Page | 8
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
meanwhile, a fresh advertisement was published for the Jharkhand circle.
The petitioner along with other including Kumar Abhishek have
participated in the process of selection.
30. The comparative merit list was prepared in which the name of Kumar
Abhishek has been shown at sl. No.2 while the name of the petitioner has
been shown to be at sl. No.4. for ready reference, the merit list as has been
brought on record in the tabular chart is being reproduced as under:
JHARKHAND
Combined Merit List of LDCE IP 2015-16 22nd and 23rd of October, 2016
Sl. Name ROLL ATTENDANCE CAT ABS1 ABS2 ABS3 ABS4 MRK1 MRK2 MRK3 MRK4 TOTAL APS STATUS
No. NO1 SUBHASH 100053 UR 232 208 248 236 924 N QUALIFI
CHANDRA
PANDEY2 KUMAR 100008 UR 174 186 232 222 814 N QUALIFI
ABHISHEK3 UTTAM 100052 UR 172 164 234 222 792 N QUALIFI
KUMAR4 AMIT 100032 UR 186 192 208 200 786 N QUALIFI
KUMAR5 MD 100031 UR 186 184 216 184 770 N QUALIFI
KHALID…
31. The respondent authority in the meanwhile, i.e., after making an
application in pursuance of the advertisement of the vacancy year 2014
has considered the case of Kumar Abhishek and has decided to appoint
him for the vacancy year 2014. Accordingly, he was appointed.
32. The petitioner, therefore, has agitated the grievance that since the number
of vacancies for the Jharkhand circle was 03 in number as per the
advertisement notified and as such, after shifting of Kumar Abhishek, the
petitioner being 3rd in the merit list ought to have been appointed.
33. Learned Tribunal has rejected the said plea on the following reasons:
Page | 9
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]“19. The case of applicant is not similar to the case of Shri Kumar Abhishek.
The result of Shri Kumar Abhishek was declared due to the reason that he
cannot be deprived from his right because of an ineligible candidate being
allowed to appear in the examination of 2014 and taking up a slot which he
did not deserve. The department was also held responsible for their mistake
because they have not properly scrutinized all the applications with regard
to eligibility whereas in the present case the selection to the declared
vacancies were made with respect to the result published vide Directorate
Letter No.A-34012/09/2016 dt. 16.09.2016 for LDC Examination, Inspector
Post 2015-16 and in the order of merit. There is no system of waiting list
and unfilled vacancies due to change of the selection years of one candidate
carried forward to the following year as per the existing rules and
provisions on the subject.
20. The case of Amit Kumar is also not similar with the case of Shri Praveen
Chand Pant as the revised result was delivered due to deletion of some
questions of LDCE for promotion to the cadre of Inspectors post for the
relevant year 2012 after redrawing the merit list.
21. The Principle emerges from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Thissur District Co-operative Bank.
“When once the selection process is complete and appointment had
been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on
the appointee having joined the posts leaves the same. It must be treated
as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate
rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this
Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma and Anr. (JT 2001
(9) SC 266)”
22. From the above facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited vs. Delson
Ddavis (supra) which is further affirmed by the Hon’ble Court in the case
of UOI & Ors. vs. G. Ramesh (supra), the balance of convenience is not in
favour of the applicant.
23. As a result, OA is dismissed.
24. No order as to costs.”
34. It is correct that as per the advertisement, the number of vacancies were
03 in number for Jharkhand circle. The document upon which the
respondent has relied upon which is in pursuance of the decision taken
Page | 10
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
based upon the order passed by the learned Tribunal pertaining to vacancy
year 2014 and 2015-16 both. The decision was that initially when the
candidature of Kumar Abhishek was rejected for the vacancy year 2014,
then he moved to the learned Tribunal for consideration of his candidature
and accordingly, the respondent was directed to consider the candidature
and take final decision. But in the meanwhile, since new advertisement
was published being No. A-34012/09/2016- DE dated 16.09.2016 and the
vacancy upon which Kumar Abhishek was to be appointed for the vacancy
year 2014 has been decided to be shifted to the vacancies in the year 2015-
16 as per the letter dated 20/21.02.2017 as annexed at Anx.-D and the
number of vacancies gone upto 03, i.e., two for the vacancy year 2015-16
and 01 by carrying forward from for the vacancy year 2014 to that of the
vacancy year 2015-16 due to non-consideration of the candidature of
Kumar Abhishek.
35. But, subsequent to the notification of the said advertisement, the
respondent authorities have acted upon the order passed by the learned
Tribunal and in compliance thereto, the said Kumar Abhishek was
appointed because the vacancy which was carried forward for the vacancy
year 2015-16 and for compliance of the Tribunal’s order, the respondent
authorities have again taken a decision to reduce the number of vacancy
from 03 to 02 for the purpose of appointment of the said Kumar Abhishek
for the vacancy year 2014.
36. It is the document pertaining to the decision so taken by decreasing the
number of vacancy to 03 to 02 although had not been brought on record
before the Tribunal by the respondent rather this Court has passed an order
Page | 11
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
on consideration of the hearing made on behalf of the parties with respect
to the consideration of the issue on the basis of the principle of accrual of
right and has called upon the entire record in order to assess the issue as
would be evident from the order dated 17.03.2026. The entire record was
produced before this court. This Court has perused the entire record and
found one document which had not been brought on record before the
learned Tribunal, therefore, this Court had directed the learned counsel for
the respondent to bring the document which is necessary for adjudication
of the lis and accordingly, an affidavit was filed on 02.04.2026 appending
the document showing the decision taken by the authority of reducing the
number of vacancy from 03 to 02.
37. The question has been raised that before the Tribunal, the said document
had not been produced and as such, it may not be considered.
38. This Court is of the view that since this Court is exercising the power
conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is by way
of power of judicial review upon the order passed by the learned Tribunal
as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L.
Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261 but that
does not mean that there may be any miscarriage of justice.
39. The power which is to be exercised as per the position of law is to look
into the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Tribunal
only in a case error apparent on the face of the order or in a case of
perversity of finding in exercise of power conferred under the power of
judicial review as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph-
Page | 12
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
99 in the aforesaid judgment. The said paragraph is being referred as
under:
“99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of
Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude
the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles
226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the
Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations
enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same
extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High
Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article
32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our
Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and
Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers
conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals
created under Article 323-A and Article 323- B of the Constitution are
possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory
provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be
subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose
jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless,
continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law
for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for
litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they
question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation
which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and
constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.”
40. Even accepting the fact that the necessity of the document dated
20/21.02.2017 (Anx. – D) & Anx. – G was necessarily to be brought on
record before the learned Tribunal. The question is that if certain
document has not been brought before the learned Tribunal, can it not be
considered by the High Court in order of substantial justice.
41. This Court is of the view that if certain document has not been brought
before the learned Tribunal and it is required to be considered for the
aforesaid purpose, if the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the
Page | 13
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
Constitution of India has passed order calling upon the record regarding
the relevance of certain document then, the document is necessarily to be
considered for the purpose of adjudication of the lis.
42. Accordingly, this Court has considered the said document and found the
subsequent policy decision taken by the respondent authority upon which
the number of vacancy has been reduced from 03 to 02, it was in
consequence of the compliance of the order passed by the learned Tribunal
with respect to Kumar Abhishek who has been appointed by shifting the
vacancy which was carried forward from the vacancy year 2014 to
vacancy year 2015-16. For ready reference, the said document is being
referred as under:
“DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMANSTER GENERAL, JHARKHAND CIRCLE,
MEGHDOOT BHAWAN, DORANDA, RANCHI-834002
To,
Shri G.M. Taneja,
Asst. Director General (DE),
Postal Directorate,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
No.:- R&E-2/IPOs Exam/2015-16/Cg.1
Subject : Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the Cadre
Inspector Posts (66.66%) Departmental quota for the year 2015-16 held on 22nd &
23rd October, 2016.
Reference: Postal Directorate, New Delhi letter no. A-34012/09/2016-DE dtd.
10/13.02.2017.
Sir,
With reference to Dte’s letter cited above on the above mentioned subject, final
vacancy position for the said examination is furnished in the following format:-
Vacancies for the period 01.01.2015 to 31.03.2016
Sl. No. Name of the Vacancies informed Total
Circle
UR SC ST
1. Jharkhand 03 Nil Nil 03
CircleNote: 01 vacancy under UR quota for the vacancy year 2014 has been carried over
and added to the vacancy year 2015-16 in light of cancellation of result of Shri Sanjay
Kumar, Roll No. 1201220034 communicated by the Postal Directorate vide letter no.
Page | 14
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]A-34013/07/2014-DE dated 28.07.2016. It is further intimated that Shri Kumar
Abhishek, Roll No. 1201220021 appeared in Inspector Posts Exam 2014 has filed an
OA No. 051/………/2016 in the Hon’ble CAT, Circuit Bench, Ranchi for his selection
which is still pending in Hon’ble CAT.
This has been approved by the Competent Authority.
(G.C. Dey)
Asstt. Director Postal Services (Rect)
O/o the Chief Postmaster General
Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi 834002.”
43. Now, coming to the merit position, admittedly the petitioner was at sl. no.4
and Kumar Abhishek was at sl. no.2. It is the admitted case that one
vacancy under the UR quota for the vacancy year 2014 has been carried
over and added to the vacancy year 2015-16 and as such, the merit list
after shifting of Kumar Abhishek now comprised of only three candidates
including the petitioner who ranks at sl. no.3.
44. The fact is also not in dispute that the other two candidates having scored
more marks and being meritorious were placed above the petitioner,
namely, Subhash Chandra Pandey and Uttam Kumar, as such, due to non-
availability of the vacancy, the petitioner cannot be appointed.
45. The view which has been taken by the learned Tribunal regarding the
accrual of right etc., is also of much importance that so long as the
candidate is not being appointed, no right is being accrued.
46. This Court deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal position regarding
the accrued/vested right and at what stage and how the same be done away.
But before referring to the aforesaid judgment, it requires to refer the
definition/meaning of vested/accrued right.
47. Rights are ‘vested’ when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has
become property of some particular person or persons as present interest;
mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property
Page | 15
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute
vested rights.
48. In Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at
page1397, the word ‘vested’ is defined as a tenure subject to no
contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right, vested
interest.
49. The word ‘vested’ is normally used where an immediate fixed right in
present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created. With the
long usage the said word ‘vest’ has also acquired a meaning as “an absolute
or indefeasible right”. It had a ‘legitimate’ or “settled expectation” to obtain
right to enjoy the property etc. Such “settled expectation” can be rendered
impossible of fulfilment due to change in law by the legislature. Besides
this, such a “settled expectation” or the so-called “vested right” cannot be
countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to
be served by amendment of the law.
50. Thus, “vested right” is a right independent of any contingency. Such a
right can arise from a contract, statute or by operation of law. A vested
right can be taken away only if the law specifically or by necessary
implication provide for such a course.
51. In the light of the definition of the “vested right”, it is evident that right
accrues to person or persons attached to an institution or building or
anything whatsoever, meaning thereby, if an incumbent is claiming a
vested right, he is to substantiate before the court of law that the right has
been created in his favour by an order passed by the competent authority
in accordance with law.
Page | 16
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
52. It is evident from the definition of the vested right that right would be said
to be vested right, permanent and continuous in nature and if that be so,
the question of prejudice or following of principles of natural justice will
arise.
53. Further, it needs to refer herein that once the right has been accrued, the
subsequent rule framed carving out the eligibility criteria will not be
considered to be a reason to recall the benefit already granted due to the
reason that a vested right has been created. Here, it is relevant to refer the
definition of vested right as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in MGB
Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583] at paragraph
11, 12 and 13, which read hereunder as:-
“11. The word “vested” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edn.)
at p. 1563, as:
“Vested.–fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the
character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent;
not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are ‘vested’
when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property
of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere
expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest inproperty
founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not
constitute ‘vested rights’.”
12. In Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at p.
1397, “vested” is defined as law held by a tenure subject to no
contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested
interest.
13. Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it
cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested
right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an
accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy
decision/scheme could be changed.”
54. Further, the Court having the power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India is to scrutinize the process of selection on the issue of its fairness
and transparency in order to have the object of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
Page | 17
[2026:JHHC:11643-DB]
55. This Court, on consideration of the entire document and the averment
made in the affidavit which is based upon the document, is of the view
that whatever process has been followed, the same cannot be said to suffer
from error.
56. Law is well settled that if there is no infirmity in the process of selection
and if it does not suffer from vice of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India, in such circumstances, there cannot be any interference in the
decision so taken by the authority. Exactly the situation herein is as per
the discussion made hereinabove.
57. This Court, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances as referred
hereinabove, is of the view that the order impugned needs no interference.
58. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and stands dismissed.
59. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I agree,
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
21st April, 2026
Saurabh/-
A.F.R.
Uploaded on 22.04.2026
Page | 18
