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