Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeew Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief … on 27 April, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:12232
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3328 of 2025
-------
1. Sanjeew Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Bholanath
Bhagat, resident of Tulsi Kita, Pathergama, P.O.
Pathergama, P.S. Pathergama, District Godda,
Jharkhand.
2. Rajiv Kumar, aged about 47 years, son of Devchandra
Mishra, resident of Flat no. 104, Iridium Block,
Vasundhara Crest, Hatia, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Hatia, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Kamleshwar Narayan, aged about 48 years, son of Sri
Ram Narayan Singh, resident of C/o Pallavi, House no.
329, Bharat Ekta Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City,
P.O. Marafari Colony, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
4. Bijay Verma, aged about 57 years, son of Kauleshwar
Prasad, resident of Daroodih, P.O. Daru, P.S. Daru,
District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
5. Seema Singh, aged about 47 years, wife of Ritesh Kumar,
resident of Flat no. T3, Kasturi Apartment, Road no. 7,
Kusum Vihar, Morabadi, G.P.O., P.S. Bariatu, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
6. Jyoti Kumari Jha, aged about 48 years, wife of Manoj
Kumar Tiwary, resident of House no. 1, Samridhi
Duplex. Dungri, Tupudana, Hatiya, P.O. Hatia, P.S.
Hatia, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7. Anant Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Binay Kumar
Sinha, resident of 243/27, Matwari House Compound,
Behind Samrat Hotel, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar,
District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
8. Parmeshwar Munda, aged about 48 years, son of Nandu
Munda Matkama, resident of Ghaghra, Deoria Bargaon,
P.O. Ramgarh, P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh,
Jharkhand.
9. James Surin, aged about 56 years, son of Late Samuel
Surin, resident of Village Debadih Daud Nagar, P.O.
Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
…… Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government
of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building,
1
2026:JHHC:12232
Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents
——-
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
——-
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Adv.
: Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Res.-State : Mr. Varun Prabhakar and Arun
Kumar, AC to G.P.-III
——-
CAV on 16.04.2026 Pronounced on 27.04.2026
The instant writ application has been preferred
by the petitioners who are presently working at the post
of Additional Collector and equivalent rank seek
consideration of their case for promotion to the post of
Joint Secretary and equivalent posts w.e.f. 22.12.2023
i.e. the date on which the Departmental Promotion
Committee (“DPC”) was convened after the petitioners
became eligible for the promotion.
Further, the petitioners have also prayed for
grant of all notional and consequential benefits to the
petitioners w.e.f. 22.12.2023 upon being promoted to the
post of Joint Secretary and equivalent posts.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioners were appointed to the post of Deputy Collector
pursuant to them being declared successful in the first
Combined Jharkhand Civil Services Examination, 2006.
The selection/recruitment process, came
under the scanner of investigation by the Central Bureau
of Investigation and upon conclusion of the investigation,
2
2026:JHHC:12232
a chargesheet was filed on 30.04.2024 in which the
petitioners have been arraigned as accused only for the
reason that they are the beneficiaries of the process
which is said to be tainted.
During the pendency of the investigation, the
petitioners were granted promotion to the post of Sub
Divisional Officer and equivalent posts by a notification
dated 06.07.2015. Subsequently, vide notification dated
28.09.2021, the petitioners were granted promotion to
the post of Additional Collector w.e.f. the date of
notification but being aggrieved by the effective date of
promotion, a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(S) no. 5119 of
2022 was filed by the petitioners.
This Court vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed
in W.P.(S) no. 5119 of 2022, granted notional promotion
to the petitioners to the post of Additional Collector w.e.f.
25.09.2020 but no consequential financial benefits was
accorded. The petitioners have been discharging their
duties and functions with utmost integrity, honesty, hard
work and have claimed that they are now eligible and
entitled to be promoted to the next higher post of Joint
Secretary on their completion of two and a half years on
the post of Additional Collector. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that it is the specific case of the
3
2026:JHHC:12232
petitioners that they were entitled to be considered for
promotion by the DPC, which convened a meeting in
December 2023, for the purposes of preparing a panel of
eligible candidates who could be placed and promoted in
the year 2024 as and when the vacancies arise on
account of retirement or otherwise.
The case of the petitioners is based on the
resolution of the State of Jharkhand dated 07.11.2003,
and the resolution dated 12.05.2014. By the resolution
dated 07.11.2003, the Government of Jharkhand had
resolved vide paragraph 5 as follows: –
“It shall be the responsibility of the administrative
department to get a panel prepared by the departmental promotion
committee by December of the previous year for promotion in the next year
against the vacancies arising in each calendar year, so that promotion
orders may be issued in time against the vacancies arising in the next
year.”
Likewise, by the resolution dated 12.05.2014,
the Government of Jharkhand had decided to convene at
least two meetings of the DPC per year.
4. Ld. Counsel contended that the failure of the
State of Jharkhand and consequently the DPC to
consider the case of the petitioners for promotion in the
month of December 2023, has resulted in gross
miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as, their case for being
promoted to the next higher post has now been defeated
on account of subsequent development viz. the filing of
the chargesheet by the CBI on 30.04.2024 and therefore
4
2026:JHHC:12232
their cases now will be considered in terms of the sealed
cover procedure and even if they are found fit and
eligible, they will not be granted the promotion till the
conclusion of criminal trial which is said to be long
drawn and in the meantime, the juniors of the petitioners
would be promoted. The entire promotional avenues of
the petitioners hit a dead end for the time being.
5. He further submitted that their case was not
considered by the DPC in the month of December 2023
for the reason that the State Government had
miscalculated the vacancies. The State Government had
indicated that there are only 14 vacancies for which
promotion can be considered of the eligible candidates.
It is the specific case of the petitioners that the
said calculation of the State Government was wrong. In
the writ petition at paragraph 16 and 17, the petitioners
have stated that as on 22.12.2023, the total anticipated
vacancies for the post of Joint Secretary were 33 posts in
the General Category and 9 posts in the Scheduled Tribe
Category. Further, in para 21 of the writ petition, the
petitioners have stated that the total number of vacancies
against the post of Joint Secretary under the General
Category was 35 and under Scheduled Tribe Category
was 8 as on the date of filing of the writ petition. It has
been further stated in paragraph 16 and 17, that despite
5
2026:JHHC:12232
being eligible and falling in the zone of consideration, the
case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Joint
Secretary was wrongly not considered by the State
Government.
It is pertinent to mention that the above
paragraphs 16, 17 and 21 of the writ application, have
not been denied by the State Government in their
Counter Affidavit and therefore it has been contended on
behalf of the petitioners that the factual position stands
admitted.
6. Based on the above, it has been further
contended that the petitioners’ case ought to have been
considered by the DPC in their meeting held on
22.12.2023 and failure to do so, has violated the
petitioners’ fundamental rights to be considered for
promotion. The intervening circumstance of filing of the
chargesheet, therefore, according to the petitioners,
would not come in the way of this Court to grant relief to
the petitioners for consideration of the case of the
petitioners of further promotion to the post of Joint
Secretary or equivalent rank and the High Court under
Article 226 is competent to issue directions to the
respondent- State of Jharkhand to rectify the error.
7. Mr. Sinha has also contended that the State
Government have considered the case of the petitioners
6
2026:JHHC:12232
for promotion in a DPC held on 12.03.2025 that is after
filing of the chargesheet on 30.04.2024. According to the
petitioners the State Government has also failed in its
duty to convene a DPC in 2024 which has resulted in
violation of the resolution dated 12.05.2014, and
consequently the petitioners have been further deprived
of their right to be considered for promotion for one whole
year. Although, the cause of action for redressal of this
grievance only arises in the event the petitioners do not
succeed in the present writ petition, and accordingly
liberty is sought for to file a fresh writ petition if the
cause of action so arises.
8. Ld. Counsel representing the State, on the
other hand have contended that anticipated or projected
vacancies do not create any vested or accrued right in
favour of the employees to claim promotion automatically
with retrospective effect. The promotions granted to the
petitioners were conditional and ad-hoc promotions in
view of the fact that their initial appointment was under
investigation.
He further submitted that at the time of DPC
held on 22.12.2023, only 14 vacancies were available as
per the duly cleared reservation roster. The next DPC was
held on 12.03.2025, wherein the names of the petitioners
were duly considered and the promotion of the charge-
7
2026:JHHC:12232
sheeted officers were kept in sealed cover. Further
admittedly, in the DPC dated 12.03.2025, decision was
taken to promote 2 officers junior in rank to the
petitioners to the post of Joint Secretary since no
chargesheet was filed against them and no cognizance
has been taken against these officers.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the documents on record, the
following issues are framed.
Issues:
(i) Whether the respondents failed to accurately determine the
existing vacancies as on 22.12.2023 and the anticipated vacancies to
arise till the year 2024 in the DPC meeting dated 22.12.2023, and further
failed to prepare a panel in accordance with para 5 of the notification
dated 7.11.2003 which has resulted in denial of the petitioners’
fundamental right to be considered for promotion ?
(ii) Whether the petitioners are eligible to be empaneled for
promotion to the post of Joint Secretary w.e.f. 22.12.2023 which is much
prior to issuance of chargesheet dated 30.04.2024 ?
(iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of all
notional and consequential benefits with effect from 22.12.2023 ?
Analysis:
10. The right to be considered for promotion is a
fundamental right of the petitioners as guaranteed under
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which has been
denied to the petitioners due to the miscalculation of the
vacancies by the respondents and their failure to prepare the
panel in accordance with the resolution dated 07.11.2003.
Had the respondents acted promptly, the petitioners’ case for
promotion to the post of Joint Secretary would have been
8
2026:JHHC:12232
considered on 22.12.2023 i.e. the date on which the DPC was
convened after the petitioners became eligible for promotion
to the higher rank.
In Union of India v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan
(2010) 4 SCC 290, the Hon’ble Apex Court was faced with a
somewhat similar issue; whereby due to laches on the part of
the Government the case of promotion of the eligible officers
could not be considered timely. The Hon’ble Apex Court while
deciding the issue upheld the judgements passed by the High
Court of Delhi; whereby direction was given to undertake the
cadre review exercise as if it took place on 30.04.2003 with
reference to the vacancy position as on 1.1.2004. In para 36,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has accepted the legal position that
the right of eligible employees to be considered for promotion
is virtually a part of their fundamental right as guaranteed
under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and flows from
guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Further, in para 38, it was held that legitimate expectation of
being considered for promotion have been defeated by the
unreasonable inaction on the part of the Government and
stood in the way of the employees’ chances of promotion from
being fairly considered and such delay had made them
ineligible for consideration. Since the delayed exercise of
statutory function was without any plausible explanation, for
which the employees could not be made responsible in any
way, the directions of the High Court could not be said to be
unreasonable.
9
2026:JHHC:12232
11. Similarly, in the instant matter, the petitioners’
fundamental right to be fairly considered for promotion have
been denied despite being eligible as early as on 22.12.2023
due to the inaction and due to the miscalculation of vacancies
on the part of the respondent authorities. Once a candidate
satisfies the eligibility criteria for being considered for
promotion, denying equal opportunity to some of them in
matters of public employment on the basis of criteria which is
not laid down, results into violation of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India [for reference B. Amrutha Lakshmi v.
State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 16 SCC 440.]
12. In Union of India v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah
[(1996) 6 SCC 721], the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated that
since preparation of the select list is the foundation of
promotion and its commission impinges upon the legitimate
expectation of the promotee officers for consideration of their
claim, the committee should meet every year and prepare the
select list, which shall be reviewed from time to time as
exigencies demand and further direction was given to prepare
the notional select list after adjusting the vacancies to arise
for the years that the selection committee did not meet and
direction was made to appoint the officers against the
vacancy of that year along with all consequential benefits.
In the instant matter, the action of the respondent
authorities in miscalculating the number of vacancies to arise
in the year 2024 therefore has resulted in gross prejudice to
the petitioners.
10
2026:JHHC:12232
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India v. N.R. Banerjee reported in (1997) 9 SCC 287 in
para 9 to 12 has stressed the importance of preparation of
panel and laid down the requirements of taking advanced
action so that the DPC is convened timely. Preparation of
panel well in advance to fill up the clear vacancies or
anticipated vacancies and to place the same before the DPC
was also reiterated stating that the claim of the eligible
candidates has to be considered for promotion objectively,
and dispassionately with a sense of achieving manifold
purposes. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Khalid
Rizvi v. Union of India, (1993) Supp (3) SCC 575 at
paragraph 35 whereby it was held:
“We, therefore, hold that preparation of the select list every year is
mandatory. It would subserve the object of the Act and the rules and afford
an equal opportunity to the promotee officers to reach higher echelons of
the service. The dereliction of the statutory duty must satisfactorily be
accounted for by the State Government concerned and this court takes
serious note of wanton infraction.”
14. The above legal principles would apply with equal
force to the instant matter as the inaction and failure on the
part of the respondents to act with promptitude in forming a
panel in accordance with the notification dated 7.11.2003 has
taken away their right to be considered to promotion and
subsequently getting promoted against the vacant posts of
Joint Secretary.
The inaction and / or laches of the respondent will
lead to stagnation of the petitioners’ professional career and
future avenues, and the petitioners shall be forced to work
under their juniors. In P.N.Premchandran v. State of
11
2026:JHHC:12232
Kerala [(2004) 1 SCC 245], the Hon’ble Apex Court has
granted retrospective promotion to the officers since DPC was
not convened in time which was an administrative lapse on
the part of the State.
15. The right of the petitioners to be considered for
promotion is an incentive for any government employee to
excel in his performance, and if such incentive is denied, the
employee may lose his interest to improve his performance,
especially when the junior persons are being granted
promotion, but the petitioners, despite being eligible, have
been denied their fundamental right to be considered for
promotion. Such action being discriminatory is in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution {for reference Bihar State
Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das (2024) SCC Online SC
1768, para 22}.
16. The factum of miscalculation of vacancies is
admitted by the respondents as they have not denied the
averments made in paragraph 16 and 17 of the writ petition.
Viewed thus, it can safely be deduced that the petitioners
were victimized and the mistake on the part of the State of
Jharkhand has literally taken away the fundamental right of
the petitioner to be considered for promotion.
17. In the case of Union of India & others v.
Sangram Keshari Nayak reported in (2007) 6 SCC 704, the
issue that fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court
was that whether sealed cover procedure could be validly
adopted when there was no chargesheet against the officer at
12
2026:JHHC:12232
the time DPC met, and also when his turn for promotion
came according to his position in the panel. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in para 11 has held that though promotion is
not a fundamental right, but the right to be considered for
promotion is a fundamental right and such a right brings
within its purview an effective, purposeful and meaningful
consideration, although suitability of the candidate must be
left at the hands of the DPC, but the same has to be
determined in terms of the rules applicable. At the time of
DPC, if no material is placed before the DPC to take recourse
to the sealed cover procedure, there was no bar in promoting
the candidate during that period.
Applying the said law to the facts of the instant
matter, it can be inferred that at the time of convening the
DPC on 22.12.2023 except on account of the miscalculation
of vacancies, there were no materials placed before the DPC
to deny consideration of the case of the petitioners for
promotion since no chargesheet was filed against the
petitioners. Accordingly, solely due to the errors on the part of
the respondents to calculate the vacancies, has violated the
fundamental right of the petitioners to be considered for
promotion to the post of the Joint Secretary.
18. The respondents have stated in para 16 of their
counter affidavit that the sealed cover procedure as laid down
in Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman {(1991) 4 SCC 109},
has been adopted by the respondents in the DPC meeting
convened on 12.03.2025 wherein the names of the petitioners
13
2026:JHHC:12232
were considered. But it is not the case of the respondents that
the petitioners were ineligible for promotion to the post of
Joint Secretary as on 22.12.2023. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in para 16 of Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman
(supra) has categorically held that for the purpose of sealed
cover procedure, the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be
said to have commenced only when a charge memo in a
Disciplinary Proceeding or a chargesheet in a criminal
proceeding, has been issued to the employee.
19. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this
case particularly the admitted position that as on 22.12.2023
i.e. the date of DPC, no chargesheet was filed against the
petitioners, and that no disciplinary proceeding whatsoever
was pending against them and in absence of any denial by
the respondents that the petitioners were duly eligible for
being considered for promotion on 22.12.2023, the case of the
petitioners for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary should
have been considered by the respondents.
20. Consequently, it must be held that any resort to
sealed cover procedure would amount to denial of the
fundamental right of the petitioners to be considered for
promotion as on 22.12.2023 which is much prior to the date
of issuance of the chargesheet against the petitioners i.e. on
30.04.2024. Since, the petitioners were eligible for promotion
as on 22.12.2023, the case of the petitioners ought to have
been considered for promotion with effect from 22.12.2023,
and accordingly, the petitioners are liable to receive all
14
2026:JHHC:12232
notional and consequential benefits w.e.f. 22.12.2023 since
the petitioners have been denied their right to be considered
for promotion with no fault of their own.
21. The respondents have neither denied the
availability of vacancies as stated by the petitioners in para
16 and 17 of their writ petition; nor have denied the eligibility
of the petitioners to be considered for promotion to the post of
Joint Secretary as on 22.12.2023. Hence, in absence of any
contrary material or any opposition to what has been stated
by the petitioners, it can be safely concluded that as on
22.12.2023, the vacancies which existed / had been created
for the post of Joint Secretary in the General Category,
totaling to 33, are as follows:
(i) 7 vacancies as already existing on 1.12.2022.
(ii) 6 vacancies due to retirement of officers from
the post of Joint Secretary in the year 2023.
(iii) 1 vacancy due to the death of an officer in
2023.
(iv) 10 vacancies due to promotion from the post
of Joint Secretary to Additional Secretary on
22.12.2023.
(v) 6 vacancies against promotion of officers to
IAS cadre in 2023.
(vi) 1 vacancy due to promotion of an officer to the
post of Additional Secretary in September, 2024 and 2
vacancies against the officers due to retire from the post
of Joint Secretary in 2024.
Similarly, it is established that as on 22.12.2023,
the vacancies which existed / had been created for the post of
Joint Secretary in the Scheduled Tribe are as follows:
(i) 3 vacancies as already existing on 01.12.2022.
15
2026:JHHC:12232
(ii) 1 vacancy due to retirement of an officer from the
post of Joint Secretary in 2023.
(iii) 3 vacancies created due to promotion of officers
from the post of joint Secretary to additional
Secretary on 22.12.2023.
(iv) 1 vacancy due to promotion of an officer to the post
of additional Secretary in September, 2024 and 1
vacancy against the officer due to retire from the
post of Joint Secretary in 2024.
22. It has further been established that as on the date
of filing of the writ petition a total number of 33 posts were
vacant in the General Category and 9 posts were vacant in
the Scheduled Tribe Category. This factum has not been
denied by the respondents either in the counter affidavit or
during the course of arguments. Since the vacancies still
exist, the case of the eligible candidates can be considered
against such vacant posts.
23. In Union of India v. Tantia Constructions Pvt.
Ltd, (2011) 5 SCC 697 at paragraph 33 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held that injustice, whenever and wherever it
takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the
rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution of India.
24. Keeping in mind the constitutional obligation of
the government to act as model employer which is consistent
with their role in a welfare state, this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India having the extraordinary power,
deems it appropriate to direct the respondents for
consideration of the case of all the eligible candidates for
promotion to the post of Joint Secretary as on 22.12.2023
16
2026:JHHC:12232
against the anticipated vacancies after preparing a panel in
accordance with the resolution dated 07.11.2003 and further
to grant all notional and consequential benefits to the
promoted officers w.e.f. 22.12.2023.
Conclusion:
25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the instant matter, this Court issue the following directions to
the respondent – State Government:
(a) To recalculate the number of vacancies as
existing on 22.12.2023 and all the anticipated vacancies
created after 22.12.2023 up-till 2024 by taking into
account the facts stated hereinabove.
(b) To consider the case of the petitioners as well
as all the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of
Joint Secretary as on 22.12.2023 or any of them for
promotion to the post of Joint Secretary and equivalent
posts against the recalculated vacancies as per para (a)
and accordingly, to prepare a panel in accordance with
para 5 of the resolution dated 07.11.2003.
(c) If the petitioners as well as all the eligible
candidates for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary
as on 22.12.2023 or any of them are found
fit/suitable/eligible for promotion to the higher post of
Joint Secretary prior to filing of the chargesheet against
them, then the State Government shall promote and post
them against the recalculated vacancies along with all
consequential benefits.
17
2026:JHHC:12232
(d) The entire exercise shall be undertaken by
the State Government before convening of the next DPC
or within 6 weeks whichever is earlier.
26. Before concluding, reference may be made to
last limb of submission made by the petitioners seeking
liberty to file a fresh writ petition with respect to
redressal of its grievances arising out of the inaction to
convene a DPC in the year 2024 on account of causing
great prejudice and miscarriage of justice; in view of the
directions issued above, no further order needs to be
passed, save and except, it be clarified that the above
submission has not been dealt with and adjudicated in
the present order and hence, if the cause of action ever
arises, then it goes without saying that the petitioners
are entitled to file a fresh petition.
27. As a result, the instant writ application stands
allowed in aforesaid terms. Pending I.A.s if any, also
stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
April 27, 2026
AFR
Uploaded on
27/04/2026
Fahim/-
18