Jharkhand High Court
Prayag Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:9727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 2464 of 2022
----------
Prayag Yadav, son of Bhukhan Yadav, age 54, resident of Pathalgada, P.O. & P.S. Chandwara, Dist. Hazaribagh.
.......... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Department of National Highway Division, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. & District Ranchi.
3. The Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad.
4. The Executive Engineer, National High Division, Hazaribagh, P.O, P.S. & Dist. Hazaribagh.
5. The Assistant Engineer, National High Sub-Division, Barhi, P.O. & P.S. Barhi, Dist. Hazaribagh.
.......... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate Ms. Ishani Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, AC to GP-II
----------
09/ 07.04.2026 In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
(a) for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order contained in memo по. 1116 dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure 7) issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 4), whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been removed from the service w.e.f. the said date of issuance of the order dated 16.11.2017.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith reinstate and regularize the services of the petitioner who has been appointed as a Work Charge Labourer vide order contained in Memo No. 1304 dated 03.09.1985 passed by the Superintending Engineer, National High Circle, Ranchi under National High Division, Koderma at the pay scale of 350-3-380-5-400-D.Ro.-5-425 and the admissible allowance given by the Government in view of the fact and taking into consideration that several other similarly situated Work Charge Labourers including one Narayan Ram has been taken into regular service from Work Charge Establishment in pursuance of the order contained in Memo No. 560, dated 14.12.2004.1
2026:JHHC:9727
(c) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary including all consequential benefits payable to the petitioner with interest."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards impugned order and submits that the petitioner has wrongly been removed from service w.e.f. 16.11.2017. He further submits that the ground of termination is that the petitioner was not qualified. Learned counsel further draws attention of the Court towards counter-affidavit wherein a specific plea has been taken that petitioner was only 7th pass but minimum criterion was 10th pass. Referring to the aforesaid condition, learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-4 and submits that one of the co-employees who was not even 7th pass has been regularized and further submits that there is no reply in the counter-affidavit in that regard.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the counter-
affidavit and submits that the petitioner was not even qualified as per the criteria and as per the rules minimum eligibility was 10 th pass. However, he could not dispute the fact with regard to Annexure-4.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submissions made at bar; this Court is of the considered opinion that when eligibility itself is not as per the requirement, then referring to parity with a person/co-employee that he was also not qualified, is not acceptable to this Court in view of the fact that negative equality cannot be entertained as it will perpetuate the illegality in future.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma1 has held as under:
"15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake."1
(2006) 3 SCC 330 2 2026:JHHC:9727
6. Having regard to the aforesaid observations, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, also stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) 7th April, 2026 Kunal/-
Uploaded on 16.04.2026 3