Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited ... vs Sujit Kumar Tiwari Aged About 34 Years on 15 July, 2025
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.371 of 2023
-----
1. The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Engineers
Building, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited,
through its Managing Director, Engineers Building,
HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The General Manager, Personnel-cum-General
Administration, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited,
Engineers Building, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
4. The Deputy General Manager (HR), Jharkhand Urja
Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineers Building, HEC
Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
5. The Deputy General Manager (P), Jharkhand Urja
Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineers Building, HEC
Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
6. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer,
Transmission Zone-3, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand Urja
Sancharan Nigam Limited, Engineers Building, HEC
Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
... ... Appellants/Respondents
Versus
Sujit Kumar Tiwari aged about 34 years, S/o: Birendra
Tiwari, R/O.: Rajlharsawa, Grid Sub-Station, P.O. &
P.S.: Barmadu, Dist.: Seraikella, State: Jharkhand
... ... Respondents/Writ Petitioner
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 30.06.2025 Pronounced on 15/07/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4202 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the writ 1 2025:JHHC:19241-DB petition has been allowed by quashing the order as contained in Memo No.1387 dated 05.06.2018 with a further direction upon the respondent to send the petitioner on training.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated read hereunder as :-
It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2008, considering the acute shortage of technical manpower, the office of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-3, Jamshedpur invited applications for appointment on contractual basis to the post of Junior Electrical Engineer/ Asst. Operator. In response to which, the petitioner having the requisite qualification, has submitted his application along with the required certificates and testimonials for appointment to the said post.
Thereafter, the respondent No. 6, after scrutiny of the application of the petitioner, recommended his name along with other eligible candidates for contractual appointment vide letter dated 30.07.2008. Thereafter, the office of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Transmission Zone-3, Jamshedpur vide office order no. 94 dated 21.10.2008 deployed as many as 33 technical 2 2025:JHHC:19241-DB persons including the petitioner in various grid sub-station and considering the work performance of the petitioner, the respondents extended his services on contractual basis from time to time.
It is the further case of the petitioner that while he was working under the respondent-department on contractual basis, the respondent came out with Employment Notification No. 03/2016 for regular appointment of technical persons on various posts.
All the posts have been categorized in two groups namely Assistant Engineer and Technical Staff. Under the Technical Staff group, there were four posts namely, Assistant Operator, SBO-Gr.-II, Junior Lineman and Fitter, Gr.-II and except for the post of Fitter Gr.-II, the required technical qualification of the other posts was almost same with a slight variation for the post of Assistant Operator, wherein the candidates with higher qualification were also eligible to apply.
The petitioner having vast experience being engaged on the post of Switch Board Operator on contractual basis since last 8 years and also being eligible in all respect, applied for regular appointment in terms of the said advertisement. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other eligible candidates appeared in the written examination and interview and finally selected for the post of Switch Board 3 2025:JHHC:19241-DB Operator Gr.-II. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 vide office order dated 25.05.2018, issued a list of newly appointed candidates while attaching them to different circle office for the post job training. The respondents further directed all the selected candidates to report for joining at Kusai Colony, Doranda Ranchi on 27.05.2018.
Accordingly, the petitioner reported for joining but the respondents did not allow him to join and orally informed that as the educational qualification of the petitioner is different from the required qualification, his appointment cannot be made and it has been cancelled.
Aggrieved by non-acceptance of joining, the petitioner alongwith one other similarly situated candidate represented before the respondent no. 1, however, nothing was done on the same.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that after completion of entire selection process and issuance of appointment letter, the respondents without giving any opportunity of hearing or without issuing any show-cause, vide order bearing memo no. 1387 dated 05.06.2018, cancelled the appointment/ candidature of six persons on different grounds. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the respondents are taking the ground that petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment to the 4 2025:JHHC:19241-DB post of Switch Board Operator though he was working on the said post for last 8 years on contractual basis.
Aggrieved by the order of cancellation dated 05.06.2018, petitioner has knocked the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.
The respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit wherein they have taken the ground that the petitioner should have applied for the post of Assistant Operator only as he has done diploma in Electrical Engineering and not ITI.
The ground has also been taken that petitioner had given false information in his online application form that he holds eligibility for all the three posts viz. Assistant Operator, SBO Gr. II and JLM but at the time of document verification, it was found by the committee that the petitioner was not in possession of requisite qualification and rightly his candidature was cancelled.
Moreover, the cut off marks for the post of Assistant Operator is 68.80 in unreserved category whereas the marks obtained by the petitioner is 63 only, therefore, the petitioner was not selected for the post of Assistant Operator.
The respondents have also taken the ground that petitioner is diploma holder and as such, he was eligible for the post of Assistant Operator only but the petitioner 5 2025:JHHC:19241-DB misled the respondents by mentioning his qualification as ITI Electrician and applied for all the three posts which is highly unethical.
Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has allowed the writ petition by quashing the order as contained in Memo No.1387 dated 05.06.2018 with a further direction upon the respondent to send the petitioner on training.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents have filed the instant appeal.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that in pursuance to Employment Notification No. 03/2016 the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Operator, SBO-Gr.-II and Junior Lineman. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other eligible candidates appeared in the written examination and interview and finally selected for the post of Switch Board Operator Gr.-II. The writ petitioner has been appointed but subsequent thereto, his appointment has been cancelled vide order dated 05.06.2018 on the ground that petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Switch Board Operator Gr.-II.
4. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 05.06.2018, has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4202 of 2018 6 2025:JHHC:19241-DB by raising the ground that he is having Diploma in Electrical Engineering and, as such, he even though having higher qualification as required for the post of Assistant Operator or SBO-Gr.-II or Junior Lineman, and although he has been appointed, but subsequent thereto, the appointment has been cancelled by the impugned order.
5. The contention has been raised that when he is having the higher qualification than the qualification as reflected in the advertisement, the cancellation of appointment cannot be said to be just and proper. Therefore, it has been contended that the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned Single Judge and hence, the writ petition has been allowed and, as such, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer from an error.
6. While on the other hand, the respondent-JUVNL has taken the ground that the single post, as has been referred in Sl. No.7, which is the post of Assistant Operator for which the equivalence clause is there, i.e., a candidate should possess trade Certificate as Electrician from an ITI and should have experience of at least one year in the job post qualification. Candidates with higher qualification may also apply for this post only.
7. The contention, therefore, has been raised that the benefit of the higher educational qualification, if being 7 2025:JHHC:19241-DB possessed by one or the other candidates, is only applicable for the post of Assistant Operator, referred in Sl. No.7 of the advertisement.
8. The same is not the condition so far as the post of SBO-Gr.-II or Junior Lineman are concerned. The prescribed qualification for SBO-Gr.-II as mentioned in the advertisement is that a candidate should possess trade certificate as Electrician from an ITI and should have experience of at least one year in the job post qualification whereas for the post of Junior Lineman, a candidate should have passed suitable trade course as Electrician/Wireman from a recognized ITI & possess at least one year experience in the job post qualification.
9. The submission has been made that the consideration of the candidature of the candidate was there so far as the post of Assistant Operator is concerned wherein on the basis of higher educational qualification of Diploma, the candidature of the petitioner has been considered but since he has got lesser marks, i.e., 63.00 than the last selected candidate who has secured 68.80, hence he has not been selected as Assistant Operator. While, for the post of SBO Gr.II or Junior Lineman his candidature has not been considered since he was not having the prescribed qualification of ITI as required to be there in the advertisement.
8
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
10. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the rival submissions, has allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 with a further direction upon the respondent to send the petitioner on training on the ground that decision so taken by the respondent authorities is absolutely improper.
11. The said order is under challenge in the instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/appellants:
12. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-respondent, while assailing the impugned order/judgment has taken the following grounds which according to the learned counsel for the appellant has not properly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge:-
(i) The petitioner had given false information in his online application form that he holds eligibility for all the three posts viz. Assistant Operator, SBO Gr. II and JLM but at the time of document verification, it was found by the committee that the petitioner was not in possession of requisite qualification.
(ii) The petitioner should have applied for the post of Assistant Operator only as he has done diploma in Electrical Engineering and not ITI and for that post, the equivalence clause is there, i.e., a candidate 9 2025:JHHC:19241-DB should possess trade Certificate as Electrician from an ITI and should have experience of at least one year in the job post qualification. Candidates with higher qualification may also apply for this post only. The same is not the condition so far as the post of SBO-
Gr.-II or Junior Lineman are concerned.
(iii) The consideration of the candidature of the candidate was there so far as the post of Assistant Operator is concerned wherein on the basis of higher educational qualification of Diploma, the candidature of the petitioner has been considered but since he has got lesser marks, i.e., 63.00 than the last selected candidate who has secured 68.80, hence he has not been selected as Assistant Operator.
(iv) The cut off marks for the post of Assistant Operator is 68.80 in unreserved category whereas the marks obtained by the petitioner is 63 only.
(v) The learned Single Judge has also not given a specific finding as to what led him to interfere with the impugned order save and except making reference of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Raj Kumar Bhadani Vs. JUVNL & Others [W.P.(S) No.7183 of 2016].
(vi) The submission has been made that even the fact of the case of Raj Kumar Bhadani Vs. JUVNL & 10 2025:JHHC:19241-DB Others (Supra) has not been taken into consideration so as to come to conclusion that as to whether the said judgment is applicable in the facts of the present case or not.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, suffers from an error, therefore, needs interference. Submission made by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent
14. Per contra, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent, has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned judgment: -
(i) The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner is Diploma in Electrical and as such possess better/higher qualification than ITI in Electrical. Moreover, the petitioner had given first preference to the post of Assistant Operator and there is clear mention that candidates with higher qualification may also apply for the said post.
(ii) The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration that on the same certificate of Diploma in Electrical the respondents have given contractual appointment to the petitioner on the same post and in 11 2025:JHHC:19241-DB fact have taken the services of the petitioner as for about 10 years.
(iii) The order passed by the learned Single Judge is solely on the premise that the writ petitioner is having higher qualification than the qualification as reflected in the advertisement, therefore, the cancellation of appointment cannot be said to be just and proper.
(iv) Learned counsel, in addition thereto, has also taken the ground that the writ petitioner has worked on the post of Assistant Operator for about 10 years and he has been retained in service for the aforesaid period even though he was having no ITI, rather, he is holding the Diploma in Electrical but without appreciating the aforesaid fact, now the contrary point is being raised showing the writ petitioner to be ineligible to hold the post.
15. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the impugned judgment, therefore, needs no interference.
16. In response to the argument that the writ petitioner has been retained in service for 10 years as Assistant Operator, the contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that the reason for retaining the writ petitioner in service as Assistant Operator is the availability of the educational qualification for the said post as would be 12 2025:JHHC:19241-DB evident from the advertisement itself wherein it has been stipulated that the higher educational qualification can also be considered.
17. Based upon the certificate of Diploma in Electrical, the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Operator has been considered but since he has got lesser marks than the last selected candidate for the aforesaid post, he has not been selected.
18. So far as remaining two posts are concerned, since the writ petitioner is not holding ITI certificate, hence his candidature has not been considered.
19. It has also been contended that specific pleading has been made in the counter affidavit as under paragraph 11 wherein it has been stated that the writ petitioner has tried to mislead the respondent by giving false information in his online application by claiming eligibility for all the three posts i.e., Assistant Operator, SBO Gr.II and Junior Lineman but at the time of document verification, the Committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose, pointed out the aforesaid fact at the time of joining and his candidature was subsequently cancelled. Analysis
20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in 13 2025:JHHC:19241-DB the impugned judgment as also the pleading made on behalf of the parties before the writ court.
21. The undisputed fact of this case is that the petitioner is having the educational qualification of Diploma in Electrical. He was working as Assistant Operator on contract basis. The advertisement was published inviting applications for consideration of candidature of one or the other candidates for different posts including the posts of Assistant Operator, SBO Gr.II and Junior Lineman, the posts for which the writ petitioner has made his application for consideration of his candidature.
22. The advertisement provides the following educational qualification for the aforesaid three posts, for ready reference the same is being referred hereunder as :-
Sl. No. Name of post Prescribed qualification 7 Asstt. Operator Should possess trade Certificate as Electrician from an ITI and should have experience of at least one year in the job post qualification.
Candidates with higher qualification may also apply for this post only.
8 SBO Gr.-II Should possess trade Certificate as Electrician from an ITI and should have experience of at least one year in the job post qualification.
9 Jr. Line Man Should have passed suitable trade course as Electrician/Wireman from a recognized ITI & possess at least one year experience in the job post qualification.
23. The educational qualification as referred hereinabove, extracted from the advertisement, which is appended at page 73 of the paperbook (Annexure-5 to the 14 2025:JHHC:19241-DB writ petition) wherefrom it is evident that for the post of Assistant Operator a candidate should possess trade Certificate as Electrician from an ITI and should have experience of at least one year in the job post qualification and further the candidates with higher qualification may also apply for this post only. However, for the post of SBO Gr.-II the qualification prescribed is a candidate should possess trade Certificate as Electrician from an ITI and should have experience of at least one year in the job post qualification whereas for the post of Junior Line Man a candidate should have passed suitable trade course as Electrician/Wireman from a recognized ITI & possess at least one year experience in the job post qualification.
24. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has made online application by giving information claiming eligibility for all the posts to that effect specific pleading has been made in the counter affidavit as under paragraph-11, for ready reference the same is being referred hereunder as :-
"11. That in reply to averments made in para-1 (c) of the writ petition under reply, it is stated and submitted that the Petitioner should have applied for the post of Assistant Operator only as he has done diploma in Electrical Engineering and not ITI. The Petitioner tried to mislead the Respondents by giving false information in his online application form claiming eligibility for all the three post viz. Assistant Operator, SBO Gr. II verification & JLM. The document committee pointed out this fact at the 15 2025:JHHC:19241-DB time of joining and his candidature was subsequently cancelled. Moreover, the cutoff marks for the post of Assistant/Operator is 68.80 in un-reserved category and the marks obtained by the Petitioner is 63.00. Therefore, the Petitioner was not selected for the post of Assistant Operator."
25. Although response has been give to the said paragraph by the writ petitioner, but the same cannot be said to be a satisfactory response.
26. The advertisement also clarifies that the application was to be made by one or the other candidates through online mode by giving true disclosure and in absence of true disclosure, the application is to be rejected outrightly.
27. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner is having Diploma in Electrical. The other admitted fact is that for the post of Assistant Operator, apart from ITI certificate holder the candidate having the higher educational qualification can also participate in the process of selection but the aforesaid condition has not been stipulated for the purpose of consideration of the candidature of one or the other candidates for the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man, rather, the ITI certificate holder and one year experience on the job post have been prescribed.
28. It has been stated in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit, as referred hereinabove, that the candidature of the writ petitioner for the post of Assistant Operator, based upon which he claims that he was appointed on contract 16 2025:JHHC:19241-DB basis and retained for 10 years, had been considered but he has not been found to be meritorious in comparison to other candidates since he obtained 63.00 marks while the last selected candidate has secured 68.80 marks in unreserved category.
29. The candidature of the writ petitioner for the post of Assistant Operator was considered on the basis of the educational qualification possessed by the writ petitioner, i.e., Diploma in Electrical, in view of the condition stipulated therein to the effect that the candidature of the candidate having the higher educational qualification will also be considered. But, so far as the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man are concerned, the candidature of the candidate as per the condition stipulated in the advertisement is only to be considered of such candidate who are having ITI certificate and experience of one year in the job post qualification.
30. The admitted position is that the petitioner is having no ITI certificate, rather, he is Diploma in Electrical. Therefore, the candidature of the writ petitioner for the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man has been considered considering the approach of the writ petitioner to be misleading one, since he claims to have educational qualification as per the condition stipulated in the 17 2025:JHHC:19241-DB advertisement also for the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man.
31. The candidature of the petitioner when rejected, then he approached to the High Court by filing writ petition by taking the ground that since he is having higher qualification, as such, he ought to have been appointed either on the post of SBO Gr.-II or Jr. Line Man and to strengthen his argument, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others [Civil Appeal No(s). 10389 of 2024] has been relied upon.
32. This Court, in the aforesaid pretext, is now proceeding to assess the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
33. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has given its finding at paragraph-9, for ready reference, the aforesaid consideration which led the learned Single Judge in interfering with the impugned order is being referred herein :-
"9. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons:
(I) The issue involved in the present writ application has already been adjudicated upon by this Court in a similar matter i.e. W.P.(S). No. 7183 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Bhadani Vs. JUVNL & Ors.) and the 18 2025:JHHC:19241-DB respondents have not come out with a new reasoning which requires interference by this Court. (II) The appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in most mechanical manner without assigning any cogent reasons, which is not acceptable to this Court and is fit to be quashed and set.
(III) It was neither pleaded by the respondents that respondent-JUVNL under a bonafide mistake offered appointment as Switch Board Operator nor it has been argued that qualification of ITI Electrician under Employment No. 03 of 2016 is substantially different from the qualification sought for the said post under earlier advertisement for contractual appointment. (IV) The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that at relevant point of time, the certificates were not examined and verified, is totally misconceived. This court in WP(S) 7183 of 2016 has held in para-7 that:
"7. ...................... after having verified the petitioner's trade certificate and on being satisfied that he possesses the requisite qualification, appointed him on 14.06.2007. At the time of making application pursuant to Employment Notification No. 02 of 2015, he had experience of 8 years and 2 months under respondent-JBVNL. Now, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner does not fulfill the prescribed qualification. In my opinion, once a candidate attains post-job one year's experience qualification and, that too, under the same employer, he must be held eligible for the said post in the subsequent selection exercise unless, it is pleaded that the prescribed qualification in the subsequent Employment Notification is substantially different. Insistence of the respondent-JUVNL on producing a certification of equivalence of trade certificate from Department of Labour, Employment Training and Skill Development was wholly unwarranted. 19
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
8. The Certificate dated 01.03.2016 produced by the petitioner records that persons holding Trade Certificate in Electronics are competent to perform the work of Electrician. Job profile of SBO does not require some special knowledge as Electrician which a person holding Trade Certificate in Electronics cannot possess."
The said observation and opinion of learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 454 of 2017."
34. The first consideration is based upon the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 7183 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Bhadani Vs. JUVNL & Ors.) but it is evident that the factual aspect of the said judgment has not been dealt with and the applicability of the judgment has been found to be there by the learned Single Judge.
35. We, in order to go through the applicability of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.7183 of 2016 (Raj Kumar Bhadani Vs. JUVNL & Ors.), have gone through the factual aspect of the said case. The facts involved in W.P.(S) No.7183 of 2016 is enumerated herein :-
The petitioner was appointed as Switch Board Operator pursuant to the Employment Notice No. 01/2006. His appointment was on contract as Trainee SBO. The contract was initially for one year which was subsequently extended from time to time. The respondent-JUVNL issued Employment Notification No.02/2015 for appointment on different posts for filling up temporary technical posts for 20 2025:JHHC:19241-DB its subsidiary companies namely, JBVNL, JUSNL and JUUNL. The petitioner submitted online application on 10.05.2015 for the post of SBO Gr.-II. Selection procedure involved written test and interview. Candidates having working experience exceeding required maximum three years' experience were provided experience preference by according weightage of 1.5 marks for each completed additional six months of experience, however, subject to a maximum of 15 marks. The petitioner was declared qualified in the written examination held on 08.11.2015.
Appointment letter dated 30.01.2016 for his provisional appointment on the post of SBO Grade-II was issued. He submitted a certification dated 01.03.2016 from Department of Labour, Employment Training and Skill Development in respect of equivalence of certificate. By an order dated 03.03.2016 he was deployed for on job training and on completion of training he remained posted at Dabargram, Deoghar where, he was served a copy of order dated 23.08.2016, whereby his appointment has been cancelled.
36. It is evident that the factual aspect involved in the case of Raj Kumar Bhadani (Supra) is different to that of the present case since he was sent on the job training and after completion of training, he was posted at Dabargram, Deoghar where, he was served a copy of order dated 21 2025:JHHC:19241-DB 23.08.2016, whereby his appointment has been cancelled whereas in the present case, the writ petitioner was not allowed to join the post.
37. Further in W.P.(S) No.7183 of 2016, the condition prescribed in the advertisement was that a candidate should possess ITI certificate in Electrical and the writ petitioner of that case was possessing the ITI certificate but not in Electrical, rather, in Electronics. In this regard, the writ petitioner submitted a certificate dated 01.03.2016 issued by the Director, Employment and Training, Govt. of Jharkhand stating that qualification of ITI Electronics is similar to that of ITI Electrician. Here, in the instant case, the writ petitioner is not holding the ITI certificate as prescribed in the advertisement.
38. The second ground has been taken that the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in most mechanical manner without assigning any cogent reason which is not acceptable to this Court and fit to be quashed and set aside. But the learned Single Judge, while doing so, has completely ignored the pleading made by the appellant JUVNL at paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition showing the reason of non-selection on the post of Assistant Operator and non-consideration of his candidature to the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man. 22
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
39. The third reason has been assigned that it was neither pleaded by the respondent that the JUVNL under a bona fide mistake offered appointment as Switch Board Operator nor it has been argued that qualification of trade certificate from ITI under Advertisement No.3/2016 is substantially different from the qualification sought for the said post under earlier advertisement for contractual appointment.
40. The learned Single Judge without coming to the said reason, has not appreciated again the averment made in paragraph-11 to the counter affidavit wherein the reasons have been assigned for non-consideration of the candidature of the respondent-writ petitioner for the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man as also declaring the writ petitioner to be unsuccessful due to securing lesser marks so far as post of Assistant Operator is concerned.
41. The learned Single Judge has also not appreciated that earlier the appointment of writ petitioner on contract was not on the basis of any advertisement which has been admitted by the writ petitioner which is evident from a communication dated 30.07.2008 as available on page 68 which is not based upon any advertisement.
42. The fourth reason has been assigned by negating the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that at 23 2025:JHHC:19241-DB the relevant point of time the certificates were not examined and verified, is totally misconceived.
43. Again the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Anand Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020) has been considered by the learned writ court wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "we may also notice another important aspect, i.e., the employer ultimately being the best judge of who should be appointed. The choice was of respondent No. 2. who sought the assistance of an expert committee in view of the representation of some of the appellants. The eminence of the expert committee is apparent from its composition. That committee, after examination, opined in favour of the stand taken by the appellants, and respondent No. 2 as employer decided to concur with the same and accepted the committee's opinion. It is really not for the appellants or the contesting respondent to contend how and in what manner a degree should be obtained, which would make them eligible for appointment by respondent No. 2".
44. But, this Court has failed to understand that what is the nexus of such stipulation made at paragraph-11 of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in the facts of the present case.
24
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
45. The ground has also been referred at paragraph-12 that the order impugned was passed without issuing any show cause notice or without hearing the petitioner but while coming to the aforesaid finding, the learned Single Judge has not appreciated again the averment made at paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit as also the settled position of law, i.e., if there is no chance of change in the outcome in consequence of the enquiry, then for what purpose the show cause is to be given. Since show cause is not to be given merely for formality, rather, opportunity of hearing is to be given if there is chance of change in the final outcome after such decision being taken. If there is not chance of change in the outcome, then merely for the purpose of following the principle of natural justice, the show cause is not required, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & Others [(2004) 4 SCC 281] wherein at paragraph 64 it has been observed which is quoted hereunder:-
64. ... ... Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
25
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
46. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors. [(2015) 8 SCC 519] has taken similar view at paragraph 45 which reads as under:-
"45. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles in mind, even when we find that there is an infraction of principles of natural justice, we have to address a further question as to whether any purpose would be served in remitting the case to the authority to make fresh demand of amount recoverable, only after issuing notice to show cause to the appellant. In the facts of the present case, we find that such an exercise would be totally futile having regard to the law laid down by this Court in R.C. Tobacco [(2005) 7 SCC 725]."
47. Exactly same is the factual aspect herein also, since, the writ petitioner is knowing the fact that he has no educational qualification of ITI in Electrical and in that view of the matter even if show cause would have been issued, then also there was no occasion for the writ petitioner to dispute the fact in view of the admitted fact of having no ITI certificate in Electrical. Therefore, even if should cause notice would have been issued there was no chance of change in the outcome of the decision so taken by the respondent-JUVNL.
48. Hence, in the facts of the aforesaid situation, issuance of show cause notice will only be a futile exercise.
49. So far as the judgment upon which the reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra 26 2025:JHHC:19241-DB Shekhar Singh and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others [Civil Appeal No(s). 10389 of 2024] is concerned, we have gone through the factual aspect of the said judgment, for ready reference the said fact is being referred herein :-
The appellants of that case have the qualifications of post-graduation in science with microbiology, food and technology subjects. They applied for the post of FSO in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 01/2016 issued by the JPSC wherein the educational qualification for the said post was stipulated that a Degree in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology or Master Degree in Chemistry or Degree in Medicine from a Recognized University. The appellants were declared successful in the written examination and were called for interviews by JPSC, however, during the course of recruitment process, they were disqualified on the ground that the Master's degree possessed by the appellants could not be treated as a valid educational qualification for the purpose of selection to the post of FSO in the State of Jharkhand.
50. It is evident from the said factual aspect therein that under the condition of advertisement pertaining to educational qualification for the post of Food Safety Officer, 27 2025:JHHC:19241-DB the following condition has been stipulated in the statute, the same is being referred herein :-
"A Degree in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology or Master Degree in Chemistry or Degree in Medicine from a Recognized University."
51. It is evident from the educational qualification as referred therein that a degree in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology or Master Degree in Chemistry or Degree in Medicine from a Recognized University was stipulated.
52. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the governing fact of the said case, has directed to consider the candidature of the appellants by holding that the appellants, who possessed post-graduate degrees in subjects covered under Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules, were definitely and unquestionably qualified for the post of FSO under the subject advertisement.
53. It is thus evident that even the Hon'ble Apex Court has gone into the issue of condition stipulated in Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules wherein there is no reference of degree only in one subject, rather, reference of different subjects have been given.
54. While examining the condition stipulated in the advertisement in question herein of the present case, it is 28 2025:JHHC:19241-DB evident that save and except the post of Assistant Operator the equivalence clause is there of the better educational qualification while for rest of the two posts, i.e. SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man, the application only to be accepted of the candidates having the ITI certificate holder with experience of one year in the job post qualification.
55. But, herein, in the advertisement, the reference of only ITI certificate is there for the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man, hence the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others (Supra) in the facts of the present case is not applicable.
56. It is settled position of law that the applicability of the judgment is to be tested on the basis of the factual aspect involved in the case as has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 75, paragraph-47 of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow :-
"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."
57. We have also considered the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather 29 2025:JHHC:19241-DB and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others [(2019) 2 SCC 404]. The factual aspect involved therein is being referred hereunder as :-
By a Government Order dated 04.12.1996, 23,297 posts were created in various departments of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 5330 fresh posts were created in the Power Development Department, including among them 3675 posts of Technician III and 200 posts of Junior Engineer. The qualification for the post of Technician III was "Matric with ITI". The qualification for the post of Junior Engineer, which ranks higher in the hierarchy of posts, was a BE (electrical)/diploma (electrical).
On 23.02.2013, an advertisement was issued by the Jammu and Kashmir State Service Selection Board (SSSB) for filling up the posts of Technician III in the Power Development Department for various districts including Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal. For the post of Technician III in the Power Development Department, the prescribed qualification was Matric with ITI in relevant trade.
On 14-8-2014, a list of disqualified candidates was notified by the SSSB. The appellants were not part of that list and were called for a written test on 23.08.2014. On 20.11.2014, a Notification was issued for the purpose of shortlisting candidates who had cleared the written test, for 30 2025:JHHC:19241-DB the interview. Interviews were conducted at which the appellants appeared. A select list was published on 23.04.2015. The appellants were not included in the select list. The reason for the omission is that none of them possessed an ITI qualification. Aggrieved by their non-
inclusion, the appellants instituted writ proceedings seeking consideration of their candidature for selection to the post of Technician III on the basis of their position in the merit list. The appellants sought the quashing of the select list framed for the three districts without considering their position in merit and desired the reframing of the select list.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions on the ground that it was not open to the SSSB to exclude the appellants after the process of selection was set in motion and they had been subjected to a written test as well as an interview. In the view of the learned Single Judge, the rules could not have been changed after the selection process had been initiated, particularly since the list of disqualified candidates did not include them. The learned Single Judge noted that a candidate possessing a Diploma-Electrical is entitled to appointment to the post of Junior Engineer which ranks higher than the post of Technician III. Hence, in this line of reasoning, if the appellants were eligible to hold a higher post, their 31 2025:JHHC:19241-DB qualification was adequate for the post of Technician III and a Diploma in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of Matric with ITI.
In the letters patent appeals which were filed before the High Court, the Division Bench reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench held that the advertisement mandated an ITI in the relevant trade as a condition of eligibility and the SSSB had not granted any weightage to a higher qualification, in terms of Note 12. Moreover, the SSSB had categorically taken a decision on 31-1-2015 that it was only an ITI in the relevant trade with a Matric qualification that meets the prescribed qualifications.
58. We have gone through paragraph 26 of the said judgment wherein the judgment passed in the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 as also the judgment rendered in the case of State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 have been taken into consideration.
59. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the decision rendered in the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (Supra), has found that the said judgment was on the provision of Rule 10(a)(ii) and has observed that absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification 32 2025:JHHC:19241-DB necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility, for ready reference paragraph-26 of the said judgment is being referred hereunder as :-
"26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170]. The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the 33 2025:JHHC:19241-DB matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench."
60. It is, thus, evident from the judgment rendered in the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (Supra) that the settled position of law has been taken into consideration that the condition as provided in the advertisement is strictly to be adhered to and there cannot be any deviation from the same, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Another, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3714, wherein, at paragraph-13, it has been held as under:-
"13. In Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa [(1987) 4 SCC 646] this Court considered the Orissa Judicial Service Rules which did not provide for prescribing the minimum cut-off marks in interview for the purpose of selection. This Court held that in absence of the enabling provision for fixation of minimum marks in interview would amount to amending the Rules itself. While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments in B.S. Yadav v. State of Haryana [1980 Supp SCC 524] , P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141] and Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC], 34 2025:JHHC:19241-DB wherein it had been held that there was no "inherent jurisdiction" of the Selection Committee/Authority to lay down such norms for selection in addition to the procedure prescribed by the Rules. Selection is to be made giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and if such power i.e. "inherent jurisdiction" is claimed, it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary implication for the obvious reason that such deviation from the Rules is likely to cause irreparable and irreversible harm."
61. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548, wherein, at paragraph-8, it has been held as under:-
"8. .... .... .... Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post. Merely because in the past some deviation and departure was made in considering the BEd candidates and we are told that was so done because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot allow a patent illegality to continue. .... .... ...."
62. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Anit Kumar Das, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 80, has held at paragraph-17.1 as under:-
"17.1. In Yogesh Kumar [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548], it is observed and held by this Court that recruitment to public service should be held strictly in accordance with the terms of advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any.
Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives many others who could have competed for the post."
35
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
63. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement for the post of Assistant Operator is that a candidate should possess trade certificate in ITI Electrician and in addition to the same, the candidate having higher qualification may also apply for this post only
64. So far as the post of Assistant Operator is concerned, the candidature of the writ petitioner was accepted but since he has got lesser marks than the last selected candidate and, as such, he has been declared to be disqualified.
65. But for the other two posts, i.e., SBO Gr.-II and Junior Line Man, there is no condition stipulated in the advertisement, rather, the advertisement strictly stipulates to consider the candidature of the candidate having ITI in Electrical only.
66. This Court, having discussed the factual as well as the legal position and based upon the reason as referred hereinabove, is of the view that the order passed by learned Single Judge needs interference.
67. Accordingly, order/judgment dated 27.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4202 of 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.
68. The appeal stands allowed.
69. In consequence thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed.
36
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
70. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Birendra/A.F.R.
37