Jharkhand High Court
Saurabh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:6623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3007 of 2022
-----
1. Saurabh Kumar Singh, aged about 36 years, S/o Mr. Narbadeshwar
Singh, permanent resident of Village- Gongo, P.O.- Udayapura, P.S.
Pipratand, District-Palamu-822122 [Jharkhand].
2. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 34 years, S/o Late Dinesh Singh, permanent
resident of Village- Khargara, P.O. & P.S.- Haidernagar, District-Palamu-
822115[Jharkhand].
3. Shwetank Kishore Ambast, aged about 36 years, S/o Mr. Uday Kishore
Prasad, permanent resident of Ward No.11, Chitragupta Nagar,
P.O.&P.S.- Hussainabad, District-Palamu-822116 [Jharkhand].
4. Ms. Malti Singh, aged about 55 years, D/o Mr. Someshwar Singh & W/o
Mr. Surjeet Kumar Singh, permanent resident of Flat No.204, Maa
Enclave, Cheshire Home Road, P.O. & P.S.- Bariatu, District Ranchi-
834009 [Jharkhand]
5. Ravindra Singh, aged about 37 years, S/o Late Kesho Singh, permanent
resident of Village- Chauwa Chattan, P.O.- Kamgarpur, P.S.-
Hussainabad, District-Palamu-822116 [Jharkhand].
6. Ms. Sandhya, aged about 33 years, D/o Mr. Ram Bhog Kashyap & W/o
Mr. Bimlesh Kashyap, permanent resident of Ward No.03, Devi Mandir,
P.O.-Japla, P.S.- Hussainabad, District-Palamu-822116 [Jharkhand].
7. Udeshwar Ram, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Chhedi Ram, permanent
resident of Village- Patariya, P.O.- Bilaspur, P.S.- Haidernagar, District-
Palamu-822115 [Jharkhand] ....Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Department of Higher, Technical Education & Skill
Development Department, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-
Ranchi-834002 [Jharkhand].
2. The Director, Higher, Technical Education & Skill Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.
Doranda, District-Ranchi-834002 [Jharkhand].
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hussainabad, P.O. & P.S.-Hussainabad,
District-Palamu-822116 [Jharkhand]-cum-the then Secretary, Ad-hoc
Committee, A.K. Singh, College, Japla (Palamu-822 116)
4. The Vice-Chancellor, Nilamber-Pitamber University, At, P.O. & P.S.
Medininagar, District-Palamu-822101 [Jharkhand]
5. The Registrar, Nilamber-Pitamber University, At, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar,
District-Palamu-822101 [Jharkhand].
6. The Principal, AK. Singh College, Japla, P.O.-Japla, P.S. Hussainabad,
District-Palamu-822116 [Jharkhand].
7. The Secretary, Governing Body, A.K. Singh College, Japla (Palamu) C/o
the Principal, A.K. Singh College, Japla, P.O.-Japla, P.S. Hussainabad,
District-Palamu-822116 [Jharkhand]. ...Respondent(s).
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA-V
: Mrs. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA-V
Page No. 1
2026:JHHC:6623
For the University : M/s Radha Kishan Gupta & Pinky Shaw, Advocates.
--------
16/10.03.2026: Heard the parties.
2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the common Letter No.S/179/21 dated 13.09.2021 issued by the Respondent No.7 [Annexure-25 Series] whereby it has individually been communicated to the petitioners that as per the decision taken in the meeting of the Governing Body on 05.09.2021, their appointment made in July 2016 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 27.08.2014 (Annexure-2) published by the then Principal has allegedly been found to be made by an illegally acting Managing Committee and hence the said appointment has allegedly been declared to be completely illegal and hence the same is being cancelled and on this ground, their claim for payment of the arrears of their remuneration [since October 2017 onwards] has also been found to be baseless.
(ii) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the concerned Respondents: -
a. To immediately accord sanction for the creation of the required posts of the Lecturers for which the duly approved proposal dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure-1 Series) is still pending before the Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-14). b. To treat and declare the appointment of the petitioners on the posts of the Lecturers as valid and legal for all practical purposes and also not to make illegal and unjust discrimination as the same has been made by following the due process of law in the year 2016 [Annexure-1 Series, 2, 3 Series, 4 Series, 5 Series and 7] by the same rightful and competent Managing Committee of the said College which had earlier also made appointments in the year 2008, 2010 and 2011.
c. To pay the due salary/remuneration of the petitioners in lieu of the active, continuous and satisfactory services rendered by them as the same was stopped since October 2017 onwards without assigning any reason in writing and also without any show cause or hearing.
d. To allow the petitioners to continue to serve as Lecturers with full benefits of service on the basis of their valid and lawful appointment like the other similarly situated appointees of the year 2008, 2010, 2011 and also of the year 2016 who have been allowed to serve the said College. e. To refrain from making the fresh appointments in the said College in pursuance of the advertisements dated 01.11.2021 and 28.05.2022 (Annexure-26 & 26/11 or alternatively to keep the posts of the petitioners vacant unfilled till the disposal of the instant writ petition or subject to the final Page No. 2 2026:JHHC:6623 orders to be passed by this Hon'ble Court in the instant writ petition.
f. To pay the cost of litigation for unnecessarily and illegally discriminating and harassing the petitioners against the applicable provisions of law.
3. In the year 2014, A.K. Singh College, Japla published an advertisement for the post of lecturer. The petitioners were selected through interviews and appointed in July 2016, and they worked and received salary until September 2017. Their salary was stopped from October 2017 allegedly due to a complaint by a local MLA. In 2020, they approached the High Court, which directed the Vice-Chancellor to decide the matter, but he took a stand that it was the responsibility of the College Management. In September 2021, the college cancelled their appointments claiming the earlier Managing Committee was illegal and rejected their claim for arrears. Later, the college started fresh recruitment in 2021-2022, so the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking payment of their salary and protection of their service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the appointments were made through legal and proper selection process. He further submits that after stoppage of salary the petitioners requested payment in which the university constituted an enquiry committee, but the report of the committee was never made public. He also submits that the petitioners' services were terminated and their claim was rejected, even though similarity situated persons appointed in 2016 were allowed to continue and receive salary.
5. The learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner's appointments were illegal from the initial stage. He further submits that the advertisement for the lecturer posts was issued by the Principal, who was not the competent authority, as only the Governing Body of the college has the power to appoint any teaching staff. He also submits that the appointments did not follow the provision of Jharkhand State University Act, 2000, as the posts were not sanctioned and there was no recommendation from the JPSC. It was also found that the petitioners also did not meet the required UGC qualifications, as they only held postgraduate degrees. It was also alleged that some appointments were made without proper advertisement, with backdating, and without any Governing Body meeting, despite directions from the university to stop such appointments.
Page No. 32026:JHHC:6623
6. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court reveal that the advertisement for appointment of Lecturers was issued by the Principal of the College, who was not the competent authority to issue such advertisement or to initiate the process of appointment. Merely because the petitioners were allowed to work for some period and were paid honorarium for a few months would not validate an appointment that was void ab initio. An illegal or void appointment cannot be regularized by the passage of time or by payment of remuneration for a limited period. It is a settled principle of law that there cannot be equality in illegality.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Kartick Chandra Mondal reported in (2010) 2 SCC 422 has held in paragraph 25 as under-
25. Even assuming that the similarly placed persons were ordered to be absorbed, the same if done erroneously cannot become the foundation for perpetuating further illegality. If an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment. An erroneous decision cannot be permitted to perpetuate further error to the detriment of the general welfare of the public or a considerable section. This has been the consistent approach of this Court. However, we intend to refer to a latest decision of this Court on this point in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh [(2009) 5 SCC 65 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 1019] , the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinbelow: (SCC p. 102, para 67) "67. By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order...."
[A reference in this regard may also be made to the earlier decisions of this Court. See also (1) Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [(1997) 7 SCC 752] ;
(2) South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. [(2003) 8 SCC 648] ; and (3) Maharaj Krishan Bhatt v. State of J&K [(2008) 9 SCC 24 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 783].]
7. Further the counsel for the petitioners admits that the petitioners did not posses the required mandatory qualifications, which were necessary for appointment.
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments, the claim of Page No. 4 2026:JHHC:6623 petitioner that similarly situated candidates have been given job cannot be considered because there cannot be equality in illegality. Further I find that the petitioners themselves admit that they do not have the basic requisite qualification to be appointed. Since the petitioners admit that they do not have basic requisite qualification to be appointment, as mentioned in the counter affidavit at Paragraph 9(b) which is PHD/M. Fill/NET/JRF/JET, rather they are just Post Graduate only, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as they have no right to be appointed. If any other persons without requisite qualifications have been appointed, it is up to the respondent- State as well as the College to take appropriate action and for that the petitioners cannot be granted any privilege.
9. In view of what has been held above, the writ petition is dismissed.
10. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) March 10, 2026 Anu/- Cp2.
Uploaded on: 17.3.2026 Page No. 5