Jharkhand High Court
Kanhaee Prasad vs Pradeep Kumar on 28 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 198 of 2024
Kanhaee Prasad, aged about 57 years, son of Sri Sitaram
Sao, resident of Village-Dumri, Dakghar Chechadhi, P.O. and
P.S. Obra, District-Aurangabad (Bihar), at present working
and posted as Executive Engineer, Building Construction
Corporation, Government of Jharkhand, Dhanbad, P.O. and
P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
Appellant.
Versus
1. Pradeep Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Mangardeo
Oraon, resident of village and P.O.- Chiyanki, P.S.
Daltonganj, District-Palamau, PIN 822102 Jharkhand.
2. Ram Badan Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Sudin
Prasad Singh, resident of Jay Prakash nagar, Bariyatu Road,
Near Saint Judes, P.O. Bariatu, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi,
834009 (Jharkhand). ... Respondents/ Writ petitioners.
3. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004.
4. The Development Commissioner, Government of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O and PS Doranda, Ranchi-
834002.
5. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O and P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004.
6. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi-
834004.
7. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O and P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004
8. Vinay Kumar, Superintending Engineer, presently posted
at Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation
(JUIDCO) Ranchi under Urban Development & Housing
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi-834001.
9. Devashish Lehri, Superintending Engineer, presently
posted at Advance Planning Circle, Road Construciton
Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi-834002.
-1-
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
11. Abhinendra Kumar, Superintending Engineer presently
posted at Urban Development and Housing Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi 834001.
14. Kundal Kumar, Superintending Engineer, presently
posted at Field Survey Division, Advance Planning, Road
Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi-834002.
15. Jaikant Ram, Superintending Engineer, presently posted
at Road Construction Department, National Highway Circle,
Ranchi-834002.
16. Sunil Kumar Rajak, Superintending Engineer, presently
posted as Member (Technical), State Highways Authority of
Jharkhand (SHAJ) Deen Dayal nagar, Booty Road, Ranchi-
834008.
17. Vijay Kumar Das, Superintending Engineer, presently
posted under Rural Works Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi-
834004.
18. Kumar Krishnanand Das, Superintending Engineer,
presently posted under building Construction Department,
Jharkhand, Ranchi-834004.
PERFORMA RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS.
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate For the Res. 1 & 2 : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Yash Singh, Advocate Mr. I. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG For the Res. 8,9, 11 and 14-18:
: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
--------
th Order No. 12 : Dated 28 April, 2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
Prayer:
-2-
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
1. The instant appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 02.09.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3495 of 2024, which was further extended vide order dated 18.10.2024, by which, the ad interim stay has been passed to the effect that no further promotion shall be given to any of the employees till the next date of hearing.
2. The background of the filing of the writ petition on behalf of writ petitioners, who are respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, is the issuance of Resolution No. 933(S) dated 07.03.2022 issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby and whereunder by taking reference of order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016 [Ashok Kumar Roy & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] with W.P. (S) No. 2984 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 3031 of 2016, the promotion has been decided to be granted on the basis of Bihar Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 1939 [in short 'Rules, 1939'].
3. The ground has been taken on behalf of writ petitioners- respondent nos. 1 and 2 that while coming out with the Resolution No. 933(S) dated 07.03.2022, the same has been passed without taking into consideration the direction passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court particularly the order dated 17.08.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016 [Ashok -3- ( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) Kumar Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] with W.P. (S) No. 2984 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 3031 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the Co-ordinate Division Bench, while taking into consideration the issue of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer [Diploma Holder] to that of the Executive Engineer, has restrained future promotion in pursuance to Rules, 2016, with a clarification that as per the earlier Rules, Regulation and policies the promotion may be continued.
4. The ground, therefore, has been agitated on behalf of petitioners-respondent nos. 1 and 2 that when the order has been passed by the Co-ordinate Bench for restricting to grant promotion on the basis of Rules, 2016 and promotion as per earlier Rules, Regulations and Government policies can be given, then coming out with decision at paragraph 5 of the resolution dated 07.03.2022 whereby all the promotions i.e., from the post of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer including hierarchical promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer to Superintendent Engineer, Superintending Engineer to Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer to Engineer-in-Chief, which has been decided to be granted on the basis of Rules, 1939, is not proper.
5. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners, respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that in the light of -4- ( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge has passed the ad interim order not to grant any further promotion.
6. While on the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the pro forma respondents [Respondent nos. 8, 9, 11 and 14 to 18], having the same grievance as agitated by Mr. Krisha Murari, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted by referring to the Resolution No. 933(S) dated 07.03.2022 that the learned Single Judge, ought to have passed the order permitting the State to grant promotion order(s) on the basis of the applicable Rule instead of passing the order to the effect that no further promotion shall be granted to any of the employee till the next date of hearing.
7. Such submission has been made on the backdrop of the fact that, in the State, if the promotion will be restrained to be granted by order passed by this Court then how the State will function as also the same will be led to a chaotic situation. Further, the same will also be detrimental to the interest to the candidates who are aspiring for promotion on the basis of applicable Rules, 2016 or Rules, 1939.
8. In response, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 and 2, the writ petitioners, has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since no decision can be -5- ( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) taken by the State by way of an executive order said to be passed in exercise of power conferred under Article 166(3) read with Article 162 of the Constitution of India keeping the Rules of recruitment, which comes under the power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that the Rule which has been formulated either the Rules, 1939 or Rules, 2016, both are under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are subordinate legislations, which cannot be supplanted/superseded by executive instruction said to be passed in exercise of Article 166(3) read with Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
9. Learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge on the basis of the aforesaid premise has passed the ad interim stay order vide order dated 02.09.2024 after assigning the settled position of law that any executive instruction cannot be supplanted/superseded any statutory rule, therefore, the order impugned cannot be said to suffer from an error.
10. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that there cannot be any blanket ad interim stay in matter of grant of promotion of any of the hierarchy.
-6-
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings available on record as also the order passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in order passed on 26.09.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016 and order dated 17.08.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016 [Ashok Kumar Roy & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] with W.P. (S) No. 2984 of 2016 and W.P. (S) No. 3031 of 2016.
12. The learned Co-ordinate Division Bench vide order dated 26.09.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016 stayed promotion to the post of Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant Engineer till next date of hearing. For ready reference, the order dated 26.09.2016 is quoted as under:
"1.Having heard senior counsel for the petitioners and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, direct the respondents that the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant Engineer shall not be filed up, till next date of hearing.
2. This matter is adjourned to be enlisted on 24th October, 2016."
13. One Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 6527 of 2017 was filed in W.P.(S] No. 3027 of 2016 for impleadment of party as also for modification of order dated 26th September, 2016, as quoted and referred above, to the extent -7- ( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) that as per earlier prevailing Rules, the promotions may be given in the cadre of Engineers.
14. The Co-ordinate Division Bench, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 17.08.2017 directed the State of Jharkhand not to promote any employee to the post of Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant Engineer as per the Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs 11 and 12 of order dated 17.08.2017 is quoted as under:
"11.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in the writ petition, newly enacted Rules, namely, Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016 are under challenge, which is at Annexure 1, to the memo of W.P.(S) No.3027 of 2016 and this Court has granted stay to the effect that promotion to the post of Executive Engineers from the post of Assistant Engineers shall not be filled up. This order may slightly be modified to the extent that promotion to the post of Executive Engineers from the post of Assistant Engineers shall not be filled up as per the new Rules i.e. Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016, meaning thereby that as per the earlier Rules, Regulations and Policies, the promotion may be continued. These promotions will be subject to the result of these Writ Petitions.
12.Thus, looking to the challenge in the writ petitions including W.P.(S) No. 3027 of 2016 and other writ petitions, which are on Board today, we, hereby, direct the State of Jharkhand not to promote any employee to the post of Executive Engineer from the post of Assistant Engineer as per the Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016. This modified stay will be continued to be operative -8- ( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) during pendency and final hearing of the writ petition in W.P.(S) No.3027 of 2016 as well as W.P.(S) No.2984 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No. 3031 of 2016."
15. The Co-ordinate Division Bench further while hearing I.A. No. 5096 of 2017 in W.P.(S) No. 3027 of 2016, has held at paragraph 19 and 21 as under:
19) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Rules, viz., Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016, is under challenge. As per these Rules, Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) were to be promoted on the post of Assistant Engineers with a reservation of 40%. Now, after getting this promotion in Assistant Engineer with reservation, there was originally, no further reservation to the post of Executive Engineer. Now, reservation has been introduced even in the promotional cadre in the Executive Engineers i.e. those who are Assistant Engineers (Diploma Holders) shall have special reservation/quota for the promotion on the post of Executive Engineers. This has been introduced by way of enactment of new Rules namely, Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016, which is under challenge. This reservation in promotion has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 26th September, 2016. We have also modified this stay in I.A. No.6527 of 2017 to the effect that the stay granted by this Court is only with respect to promotion as per the Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016. Thus, promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer (Diploma Holder) to the post of Executive Engineer as per Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016, shall remain stayed during pendency and final hearing of W.P.(S) No.3027 of 2016 and other writ petitions which are to be heard together along with this writ petition and they are W.P.(S) No.2984 of 2016 and W.P.(S) No.3031 of 2016.
20) Counsel for the applicant submitted that grant of stay during pendency and final hearing of the writ petitions will -9- ( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) tantamount to allowing the writ petitions. We are not accepting this contention mainly for the reason that once the stay is vacated and if the Assistant Engineers (Diploma Holders) are permitted to be promoted to in reservation category/quota on the post of Executive Engineers, it will affect the career of the senior Engineers (Degree Holders) who are Assistant Engineers. Moreover, final seniority list has also been published which is annexed in the writ petition. Even otherwise also, we have already fixed the date of final hearing of the aforesaid writ petitions. In this set of circumstance, the promotion can always be given by the Government from the post of Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineers, as per the earlier prevailing Rules, Regulations and Governmental policies, but, not as per the Rules, namely, Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016. The promotions granted, as per earlier Rules, Regulations, Government Policy shall be subject to the result of these Writ Petitions.
21) With these observation, this Interlocutory Application is, hereby, disposed of.
16. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the issue which fell for consideration in the aforesaid writ petition(s) is the validity of the Rules, 2016. The Co-ordinate Division Bench has passed an order on 26th September, 2016, wherein the challenge of Rule, 2016 was the subject matter by holding therein that no promotion shall be granted and the said order has been modified by passing order in Interlocutory Application No. 6527 of 2017 arising out of W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Co-ordinate Division Bench has passed order, directing the State of Jharkhand not to promote any employee to the post of Executive Engineer
- 10 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) from the post of Assistant Engineer as per the Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016.
17. It is further evident that order dated 26th September, 2016 has been slightly modified vide order dated 17.08.2017 by the Co-ordinate Division Bench, to the extent that the promotion to the post of Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer, shall not be filled up as per new Rules, 2016; meaning thereby that as per the earlier rules and regulations and policies, the promotion may be continued and the promotions shall be subject to result of these writ petitions.
18. It further appears from the paragraph 20 of order dated 17th August, 2017 that the Co-ordinate Division Bench has further referred therein that the promotions can always be given by the Government from the post of Assistant Engineer to the Executive Engineer as per the earlier rules, regulations and government policies but not as per Rules, 2016.
19. The State Government thereafter has come out with a resolution no. 933(S) dated 07.03.2022. In the said resolution while referring to order dated 17.08.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3027 of 2016 and other analogous matters, a decision has been taken that no promotion shall be granted on the basis of Rules, 2016 rather be granted on the basis of Rules, 1939.
- 11 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
20. For ready reference, paragraph 5 of the resolution no. 933(S) dated 07.03.2022 is quoted as under:
"5. विवभन्न स्तर ों पर प्र न्नवि श्ृोंखला क बनाये रखने के वलए काययविि एिों बेित्तर प्रशासवनक प्रबोंधन के दृविक ण से W.P (S) No.-3027/2016 अश क कुमार राय एिों अन्य बनाम राज्य सरकार एिों अन्य मामले में विनाों क-17.08.2017 क पाररि अोंिररम न्यायािे श क दृविपथ में रखिे हुए सिायक अवभयोंिा से काययपालक अवभयोंिा के पि पर प्र न्नवि सविि अवभयोंिाओों के सभी स्तर ों यथा- कनीय अवभयोंिा से सिायक अवभयोंिा, काययपालक अवभयोंिा से अधीक्षण अवभयोंिा, अधीक्षण अवभयोंिा से मुख्य अवभयोंिा एिों मुख्य अवभयोंिा से अवभयोंिा प्रमुख के पि पर झारखण्ड अवभयोंत्रण सेिा वनयुक्ति वनयमािली-2016 के लागू ि ने के पूिय की वनयमािली (वबिार अवभयोंत्रण सेिा वनयमािली-1939) एिों इस क्रम में वनगयि सभी पररपत्र . वनयम ,ों आिे श ों में प्र न्नवि िे िु वनविि प्रािधान ों के आल क में प्र न्नवि प्रिान करने की कारय िाई करने का वनणयय वलया जािा िै । यि उि िाि में पाररि ि ने िाले अोंविम न्यायािे श के फलाफल से प्रभाविि ि गा।
साथ िी W.P (S) No.-3027/2016 एिों समरूप िाि ों में अोंविम न्यायािे श पाररि ि ने िक झारखण्ड अवभयोंत्रण सेिा वनयुक्ति वनयमािली-2016 क स्थवगि रखे जाने एिों वबिार अवभयोंत्रण सेिा वनयुक्ति वनयमािली 1939 एिों इस क्रम में वनगयि अन्य सोंकल्प/पररपत्र/आिे श प्र न्नवि सविि अन्य सभी सेिा शत्त ों के मामले में भी प्रभािी रखे जाने का वनणयय वलया जािा िै ।"
21. The writ petitioners, the respondent nos. 1 and 2, being aggrieved with the decision as contained in resolution date 07.03.2022 as under paragraph 5, has come to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3495 of 2024 taking the ground that the Rules, 2016 which has been enacted under conferment of power of proviso to Article 309 to the
- 12 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) Constitution of India cannot be altered/modified or even superseded by the executive instruction said to be taken in exercise of power conferred under Article 166(3) read with Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
22. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the petitioner and the State, has passed ad interim order on 02.09.2024 keeping all the promotions at halt directing that no further promotion shall be given to any of the employees till the next date of hearing, which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal.
23. Since, the appellant herein was not the party before the writ Court, as such one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 11589 of 2024 was filed seeking leave of this Court to file the instant intra court appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 19th March, 2025 and granted leave to file appeal.
24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, the issue crop up before this Court that whether proviso to Article 309 can be superseded by any executive instruction.
25. There is no dispute over the aforesaid issue if in course of recruitment process, if any resolution is passed under the power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, it will take the shape of subordinate legislation and the same can only be superseded if the State Government will come out with a rule made by the
- 13 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) Parliament or the Assembly, as the case may be. The Rule formulated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in any circumstance cannot be superseded by the executive instruction. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of K Kuppusamy & Anr. Vs. State of T.N.& Ors. [(1998) 8 SCC 469], wherein at paragraph 3 it has been held s under:
"3. The short point on which these appeals must succeed is that the Tribunal fell into an error in taking the view that since the Government had indicated its intention to amend the relevant rules, its action in proceeding on the assumption of such amendment could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary and, therefore, the consequential orders passed have to be upheld. We are afraid this line of approach cannot be countenanced. The relevant rules, it is admitted, were framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. They are statutory rules. Statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice. Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obliterated. Till the rule is amended, the rule applies. Even today the amendment has not been effected. As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication found to be retrospective. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in ignoring the rule."
26. Further, the similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Sadagopan & Ors. Vs. Food Corporation of India, Zonal Officer (South Zone) [(1997) 4 SCC 301)], wherein it has been held that ".....It is now settled
- 14 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) legal position that executive instructions cannot be issued in derogation of the statutory Regulations..."
27. This Court, in view of the aforesaid position of law and adverting to the order passed by the State as contained in resolution dated 07.03.2022 particularly paragraph 5 thereof, has found that the promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer including onward hierarchical promotions up-to the post of Engineer-in-Chief has been decided to be granted on the basis of the Bihar Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 1939, as adopted by the State of Jharkhand, and not on the basis of Jharkhand Engineering Services Recruitment Rules, 2016.
28. Argument has been advanced, by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the performa respondents, that there ought not to have to a chaotic situation and for smooth functioning of the administration in the State, the public servants, who are aspirants either to be promoted from the post of Executive Engineer to Superintendent Engineer and onward promotion to the higher post(s), it was incumbent upon the State to have a clarification or ought to have sought for leave from the Court for the modification of order dated 02.09.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3495 of 2024.
- 15 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB )
29. This Court is in agreement with such submission advanced by learned counsel for the performa respondents for two reasons. Firstly, the State, before issuance of resolution dated 07.03.2022, ought to have restricted itself with respect to issue of promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of the post of Executive Engineer and; secondly if the requirement has been thought to be there by the State authority then a clarificatory order ought to have been sought for from the Court for modification of order dated 17.08.2017 but without taking recourse of the modification of the said order, straightway resolution dated 07.03.2022 has been issued.
30. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties, clarified the issue to grant promotion on the basis of Rules, 1939 so far as promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer is concerned. The learned Single Judge, ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and on the principle of binding effect the order ought to have been passed by restricting their promotion only up-to the level of executive engineer. However, the State although ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid fact before coming with the resolution dated 07.03.2022 but as per paragraph 5 of the aforesaid resolution, the provision has been made for the
- 16 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) promotion i.e., from the post of Assistant Engineer to Executive Engineer including hierarchical promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer to Superintendent Engineer, Superintending Engineer to Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer to Engineer- in-Chief, to be granted on the basis of Rules, 1939.
31. This Court in view of the order passed by Co-ordinate Division Bench dated 26.09.2016 and clarificatory order dated 17.08.2017, is of the view that the State ought to have come out with a resolution by virtue of taking decision to grant promotion up-to the post of Executive Engineer on the basis of Rules, 1939.
32. This Court, therefore, is of the view that putting restriction not to grant any promotion is being considered to be in the teeth of order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in 26.09.2016 and clarificatory order dated 17.08.2017.
33. Accordingly, order dated passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the promotion from the post of Assistant Engineer up-to Executive Engineer is to be considered on the basis of Rules, 1939.
34. So far as promotion to be granted to the post of Superintending Engineer up-to the level of Engineer-in-Chief
- 17 -
( 2024:JHHC:23738-DB ) is concerned, it is upon the State to grant promotion on the applicable rules.
35. With the aforesaid modification in the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3495 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge, the instant intra-court appeal stands disposed of.
36. It is made clear that this order is only restricted to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2024 having no effect on the issue of merit, which is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Alankar/ N.A.F.R.
- 18 -