UTTAM TIWARI vs STATE OF JHARKHAND THRO THE SECRETARY/ PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME, PRISON AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3445 of 2025
…..
1. Uttam Tiwari, aged 31 years, son of Shri Dashrath Tiwari, resident of
Village-Bhagwatidih, P.O.-Markacho, P.S.-Markacho, District-Koderma.
2. Abijeet Kumar, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Kanhaiya Prasad,
resident of Village-Koriyadih Nawada Basti, P.O.-Jhumri Telaiya, P.S.-
Telaiya, District-Koderma.
3. Nirmal Kumar Mahto, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Nandlal
Mahto, resident of Village-Govindpur ‘e’, P.O.-Bokaro Thermal, P.S.-
Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro.
4. Prashant Kumar Mishra, aged about 33 years, son of Shri Raj Kishor
Mishra, resident of Mohalla-Jhiri, Ravi Steal Chauk, P.O.-Kamre, P.S.-
Ratu, District-Ranchi.
5. Krishna Kumar Tiwari, aged about 30 years, son of Late Satya
Narayan Tiwari, resident of Village-Parsudih, Tatanagar, East
Singhbhum, P.O.-Tatanagar, P.S.-Parsudih, District-East Singhbhum.
6. Sashi Prakash, aged about 32 years, son of Shri Raj Kumar Gope,
resident of Mohalla-Maira Para, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad.
7. Ghanshyam Kumar, aged about 30 years, son of Shri Kaushal Kishor
Singh, resident of Village-Chaurasi, P.O. & P.S.-Karay Parsuray,
District-Nalanda (Bihar).
8. Govind Kumar, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Khemlal Saw,
resident of Village-Romi, P.O.-Surajpura, P.S.-Padma O.P., District-
Hazaribagh.
9. Sumit Saw, aged about 29 years, son of Shri Kedar Saw, resident of
Village-Ajidih, P.O.-Budhiyadih, P.S.-Muffasil, District-Giridih.
10. Kashyap Gautam, aged about 33 years, son of Shri B.P. Sharma,
resident of Village-Kargali Kala, P.O.-Kubri, P.S.-Dhanwar, District-
Giridih. …….. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/Principal Secretary,
Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, having office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town & District-
Ranchi.
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having office at Police
Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Jharkhand,
having office at Police Headquarters, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa,
Town and District-Ranchi.
4. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Binod Singh, resident of Mohalla-
North Shivpuri, Hazaribagh Sadar, P.O.-Hazaribagh, P.S.-Lohsinghna,
District-Hazaribagh.
5. Rajendra Sinku, S/o Shri Soma Sinku, resident of Baliaposi, P.O.-
Khairpal, P.S.-Majhgaon, District-West Singhbhum.
……… Respondents
With
1
2026:JHHC:32694
W.P.(S) No. 5407 of 2025
1. Praveen Kumar Gupta, aged about 35 years, S/o Perdeshi Sah, R/o
Rehla Kalam, Daltonganj, P.O. & P.S.-Rehla, District-Palamu.
2. Manish Kumar, aged about 32 years, S/o Bipin Kumar, R/o near
Hanuman Mandir, Kendua, Kathgola Maidan, Kusunda, P.O. & P.S.-
Kusunda, District-Dhanbad.
3. Vivek Kumar Dubey, aged about 34 years, S/o Rajendra Dubey, R/o
Ward No.-02, Village-Khajuri, Lagma, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District-
Garhwa.
4. Sumit Kumar Das, aged about 35 years, S/o Bharat Ram Das, R/o
Nagri Kala, Katras, Chandor, P.O. & P.S.-Tetulmari, District-Dhanbad.
5. Ravi Kumar Yadav, aged about 33 years, S/o Late Dilip Yadav, R/o
Nya Tola, Kalyani Marajpur Bazar, P.O. & P.S.-Maharajpur, District-
Sahebganj.
6. Uday Kumar Das, aged about 37 years, S/o Wakil Ram, R/o Churchu,
P.O. & P.S.-Ichak, District-Hazaribagh.
7. Deopratap Pradhan, aged about 32 years, S/o Sheobali Pradhan, R/o
Bero, P.O. & P.S.-Bero, District-Ranchi.
8. Sikesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 34 years, S/o Janeshwar Yadav, R/o
Village-Baghana, Pachmo, P.O. & P.S.-Hariharganj, District-Palamu.
9. Purusotam Sharma, aged about 29 years, S/o Triloki Sharma, R/o
Gandhi Nagar, Gaya Road, near St. Joseph School Par Nawada, P.O. &
P.S.-Nawada, District-Nawada, Bihar.
10. Zishan Akhtar, aged about 29 years, S/o Md. Shahid, R/o
Amwatikar, Latehar, Hsgali, P.O. & P.S.-Latehar, District-Latehar.
………. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, at Jharkhand Police
Headquarters, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. The Director General of Police, at Jharkhand Police Headquarters,
P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Inspector General of Police (Personnel), at Jharkhand Police
Headquarters, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), at Jharkhand
Police Headquarters, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
5. Mukesh Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioners, S/o Ram
Binod Singh, R/o North Shivpuri, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh
Sadar, District-Hazaribagh.
6. Rajendra Sinku, aged about not known to the petitioners, S/o Sri Soma
Sinku, R/o Baliaposi, P.O.-Harpal, P.S.-Majhgaon, District-West
Singhbhum. ……… Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 6416 of 2024
1. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, about age of 28 years, son of Ramlakhan
Singh, resident of Village-Kandhauli, P.O.-Nanauri, P.S.-Karai Parsurai,
District-Patna, Bihar, 804451.
2
2026:JHHC:32694
2. Ravi Kumar Singh, aged about 31 years, son of Kamta Singh, resident
of Village-C.D.A. Colony, P.O.-Keshari Nagar, P.S.-Shastri Nagar,
District-Patna, Bihar, 800024.
3. Omprakash Ray, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Murlidhar Ray,
resident of Village-Gajebari, P.O.-Pathrol, P.S.-Pathrol, District-
Deoghar.
4. Kapildeo Yadav, aged about 32 years, son of Tulsi Yadav, resident of
Village-Chehal, Biharo, P.O.-Hirodih, P.S.-Jainagar, District-Koderma.
5. Kumar Gaurav, aged about 32 years, son of Subodh Kumar Singh,
resident of Village-Dantar, P.O.-Dantar, P.S.-Vashishthnagar, District-
Chatra.
6. Abhinav Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Badri Prasad, resident of
Village-Itkhori, P.O.-Itkhori, P.S.-Itkhori, District-Chatra.
7. Vivek Choudhary, aged about 28 years, son of Mahesh Choudhary,
resident of Village-Chorgatta, P.O.-Gadi Nawadih, P.S.-Jamua, District-
Giridih.
8. Josphina Hemrom, aged about 33 years, daughter of Late Clement K.
Hemrom, resident of Village-Konjari, P.O.-Fudi, P.S.-Namkum, District-
Ranchi.
9. Santosh Yadav, aged about 32 years, son of Ashok Yadav, resident of
Village-Kumhargari, P.O.-Bajto, P.S.-Giridih, District-Giridih.
10. Dharamveer Bhagat, aged about 32 years, son of Digambar Oraon,
resident of Village-Dohidon, P.O.-Pusho, P.S.-Pusho, District-Gumla.
11. Abhay Kumar, aged about 30 years, son of Arun Kumar Singh,
resident of Village-Painapur, P.O.-Wazirpur, P.S.-Bikram, District-
Patna, Bihar, 801104.
12. Sahabir Oraon, aged about 33 years, son of Late Tepra Oraon,
resident of Village-Hendlaso Shiv Toli, P.O.-Kujra, P.S.-Lohardaga,
District-Lohardaga.
13. Shashikant Kumar, aged about 30 years, son of Satyendra Narayan
Singh, resident of Village-Dumariya, P.O.-Kubba, P.S.-Not mentioned,
District-Chatra.
14. Satish Kumar, aged about 30 years, son of Umesh Pandey, resident
of Village-Sisai, P.O.-Khadhiya, P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra.
15. Vikas Kumar Paswan, aged about 32 years, son of Manoj Paswan,
resident of Village-Bhim Kanali, P.O.-Khanoodih, P.S.-Baghmara,
District-Dhanbad.
16. Nageshwar Saw, aged about 30 years, son of Ramlal Saw, resident of
Village-Beko, P.O.-Beko, P.S.-Bagodar, District-Giridih.
17. Birbal Hembram, aged about 30 years, son of Dukhuram Hembram,
resident of Village-Jamira, P.O.-Kalapathar, P.S.-Chakulia, District-East
Singhbhum.
18. Raju Oraon, aged about 30 years, son of Bhosa Oraon, resident of
Village-Sahera, P.O.-Tetri, P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi.
19. Naveen Horo, aged about 30 years, son of Matan Horo, resident of
Village-Chand, P.O.-Hulhundu, P.S.-Hatia, District-Ranchi.
20. Badal Munda, aged about 31 years, son of Jageshwar Munda,
resident of Village-Kadma, P.O.-Kanke, P.S.-Kanke, District-Ranchi.
3
2026:JHHC:32694
21. Vivek Kumar Pandit, aged about 30 years, son of Bhagirath Pandit,
resident of Village-Gadi, P.O.-Pesham, P.S.-Birni, District-Giridih.
22. Kamlesh Kumar Mahto, aged about 29 years, son of Shikhar Mahto,
resident of Village-Baghadih, P.O.-Burhadih, P.S.-Bundu, District-
Ranchi.
23. Gautam Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Ram Pyare Singh,
resident of Village-Dandai, P.O.-Dandai, P.S.-Dandai, District-Garhwa.
24. Deepak Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Dhananjay Kumar
Singh, resident of Village-Nagwan, P.O.-Manjhawari, P.S.-Simri,
District-Buxar, Bihar, 802133.
25. Vikas Dubey, aged about 28 years, son of Virendra Dubey, resident
of Village-Barka Gaon, P.O.-Mohan Derwan, P.S.-Belaon, District-
Kaimur, Bhabhua, Bihar.
26. Punu Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years, son of Goverdhan Yadav,
resident of Village-Sangramdih, P.O.-Karma, P.S.-Koderma, District-
Koderma.
27. Rakesh Kumar, aged about 34 years, son of Dilip Kumar Pal,
resident of Village-Monglabandh, P.O.-Moglabandh, P.S.-Pakuria,
District-Pakur.
28. Thakur Dayal Mahto, aged about 33 years, son of Ranjit Mahto,
resident of Village-New Police Line, P.O.-Kanke, P.S.-Kanke, District-
Ranchi.
29. Ashok Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of Pitambar Prasad, resident
of Village-Gaipahadi, P.O.-Kalhabad, P.S.-Barkatha, District-
Hazaribagh.
30. Manjesh Kumar Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Vijay Kumar
Singh, resident of Village-Bolba, P.O.-Bolba, P.S.-Bolba, District-
Simdega.
31. Omkar Pal, aged about 30 years, son of Shambhu Dayal Pal, resident
of Village-Raghunandan Vihar Colony, P.S.-Kotwali, District-
Chhatarpur, M.P.
32. Mantu Kumar Sharma, aged about 29 years, son of Khageshwar
Sharma, resident of Village-Akdoni, P.O.-Akdoni Kala, P.S.-Giridih,
District-Giridih.
33. Dulal Kumar Mahato, aged about 29 years, son of Mohit Ram
Mahato, resident of Village-Khurchi, P.O.-Godtoppa, P.S.-Govindpur,
District-Dhanbad.
34. Dheeraj Kumar Mishra, aged about 29 years, son of Ram Krishna
Mishra, resident of Village-Kailash Nagar, P.O.-Chas, P.S.-Chas,
District-Bokaro.
35. Alok Kumar, aged about 32 years, son of Siyaram Sharma, resident
of Village-Krishna Nagar, P.O.-Jehanabad, P.S.-Jehanabad, District-
Jehanabad, Bihar, 804408.
36. Rahul Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of Bisheshwar Verma,
resident of Village-Q. No. M-23/8, P.O.-Dugda, P.S.-Dugda, District-
Bokaro.
4
2026:JHHC:32694
37. Birbal Karmali, aged about 28 years, son of Rajdev Karmali, resident
of Village-Karmali Tola, Sotai, P.O.-Bariyatu, P.S.-Gola, District-
Ramgarh.
38. Prabhat Kumar, about age of 30 years, son of Mithlesh Kumar,
resident of Village-Durjanchak, P.O.-Saksohra, P.S.-Saksohra, District-
Patna, Bihar, 804451.
39. Satyam Kumar, about age of 32 years, son of Raj Nandan Singh,
resident of Village-Kunwar Singh Colony, P.O.-Chas, P.S.-Chas,
District-Bokaro.
40. Adarsh Kumar, about age of 33 years, son of Abhay Kumar, resident
of Village-Ratanpur, P.O.-Begusarai, P.S.-Begusarai, District-Begusarai,
Bokaro. …… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department
of Home, Jail and Disaster Management, officiating at Jharkhand Police
Headquarters, P.O., P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
2. The Director General of Police, officiating at Jharkhand Police
Headquarters, P.O., P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Inspector General of Police, officiating at Jharkhand Police
Headquarters, P.O., P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
4. The Inspector General of Police (Personnel), officiating at Jharkhand
Police Headquarters, P.O., P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
5. The Inspector General of Police (Training), officiating at Jharkhand
Police Headquarters, P.O., P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), officiating at
Jharkhand Police Headquarters, P.O., P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
7. Mukesh Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner, son of Ram
Binod Singh, resident of North Shivpuri, Hazaribagh, P.O., P.S.-
Hazaribagh Sadar, District-Hazaribagh.
8. Rajendra Sinku, aged about not known to the petitioner, son of Sri
Soma Sinku, resident of Baliaposi, P.O.-Harpal, P.S.-Majhgaon, District-
West Singhbhum. ……. Respondents
…..
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manoj Tondon, Advocate
Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Ranjeet Kushwaha, Advocate
Mr. Nilohit Choubey, Advocate
Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
Ms. Nidhi Lall, Advocate
Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate
Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Karamjit S. Chhabra, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Sejal Agrawal, Advocate
5
2026:JHHC:32694
For the Respondent : Mr. Navniti Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rohit Roy, A.G.
Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
Ms. Oishi Das, A.C. to A.G.
Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
For the Intervenor : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate
…..
CAV on: 15.09.2026 Pronounced on:06.11.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since common issues are involved in all the writ petitions filed
by the petitioners, they were heard together and are being disposed by
this common order, and the facts relevant to decide the main lis has been
taken from W.P.(S) No. 3445 of 2025.
BRIEF BACKGROUD
3. This is one more unending dispute arising between direct
recruits and recruits appointed through Limited Examination qua their
inter-se seniority to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Under Jharkhand
Police Manual, method of recruitment for the said post is two folds i.e.
direct recruitment, and, recruitment by promotion of Assistant Sub-
Inspector. Rule 653(c) of Police Manual provides that vacancies up to
50% shall be filled by selection from the rank of Assistant Sub
Inspectors. Rule 659 of Police Manual clearly provides that 50% of the
vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector shall be filled by selection from
the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector who have shown exceptional merit
while serving as Assistant Sub Inspector. Rule 659(g) further provides
that Assistant Sub Inspector shall be on Probation for a period of twelve
6
2026:JHHC:32694
months from the date of the order promoting them to the rank of Sub-
Inspector.
4. Appendix-93, vide Clause-9, provides inter alia that Assistant
Sub Inspector promoted to Sub-Inspector would be required to undergo
three months promotional course for promotion to the rank of Sub-
Inspector. In the said course, special emphasis was on supervision and
leadership and other allied activities.
5. Per contra, Rule 653 read with Rule 681 and Appendix 93
provides for rigorous training for directly recruited Sub Inspector. Rule
681 clearly stipulates that all Sub-Inspectors appointed direct shall be
required to undergo one year’s training course at Police Training College
in terms of Appendix 93, and, upon successful completion of training,
Sub- Inspectors shall be given practical training for two years, during
which period they shall be on probation and at the end of entire training
period, services would be confirmed by Deputy Inspector General of
Police.
6. The distinction drawn under the Rules for providing rigorous
training and giving practical experience for directly recruited Sub
Inspectors, as opposed to promotee Sub Inspector, has a reasonable
nexus to achieve. Promotee Sub Inspectors were already working on the
post of Assistant Sub-Inspector for a minimum period of five years
before their cases could be considered for promotion to the post of Sub-
Inspector and, thus, they have already acquired sufficient training, both
practical and theoretical training, during their service tenure and it is for
7
2026:JHHC:32694
the said reason, in the Rules vide Appendix 93, it has been provided that
said Sub Inspectors only required to undergo a three months promotional
course. Since directly recruited Sub Inspectors have no previous
experience, it was made mandatory for them under Rule 681 to undergo
training at Police Academy for one year and two years practical training
before which their services could be confirmed.
7. Apart from above two recruitment methods provided under the
Police Manual, Respondent-State of Jharkhand created another method
for recruitment/appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector vide
Notification bearing No. 252 dated 28.01.2016.
8. The State of Jharkhand framed ‘Jharkhand State Police Sub
Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Rules, 2016’
(for short ‘Rules of 2016’) . Under the said Rules, out of 50% posts,
which were to be filled up by promotion from Assistant Sub Inspector to
Sub Inspector, 25% posts were reserved to be filled up by Police
personnel other than Assistant Sub Inspectors. Said Rules provided, inter
alia, the requisite qualification for appearing in Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination (for short ‘ LDCE’) and the procedure to be
adopted under the said Rules of 2016 was; - Written Examination,
Physical Fitness Test, Interview and Medical Examination. Rule 27 of
Rules of 2016 specifically stipulates, inter alia, that candidates appointed
through LDCE on the post of Sub-Inspector will necessarily need to
undergo training and they would be on Probation for a period of two
years. Said amendment was carried out in exercise of powers under
8
2026:JHHC:32694
Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with Section
46(3) of The Police Act, 1861. Consequential amendments to be carried
out under the Police Manual were incorporated in the said Rules itself.
As already stated above, dispute in present writ application pertains to
inter-se seniority between directly recruited Sub Inspectors and Sub
Inspectors appointed by way of promotion through LDCE.
FACTS OF THE CASE
9. The State of Jharkhand issued Advertisement No.05/2017
dated 15.07.2017 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post
of Sub Inspector of Police, and, writ petitioners were appointed pursuant
to aforesaid Advertisement. Said Advertisement was issued for
recruitment of altogether 2483 posts of Sub Inspector of Police through
direct recruitment. Subsequent to said Advertisement, another
Advertisement being Advertisement No. 09/2017 dated 04.08.2017 was
issued for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector through L.D.C.E. for
recruitment of 1544 Sub Inspectors of Police. Although Advertisement
for L.D.C.E. was issued subsequent to Advertisement for direct
recruitment, the selection process under Advertisement No. 09/2017 was
concluded earlier and appointment letters were issued vide Memo No.
192/C dated 06.03.2018 in favour of selected candidates including
Respondents and Interveners. Subsequent thereto, on 06.08.2018, Writ
Petitioners were appointed as direct recruits to the post of Sub-Inspector.
10. It is an undisputed fact that direct recruits were sent for
training on 06.08.2018 in various Training Institutes including Jharkhand
9
2026:JHHC:32694
Police Academy, Hazaribagh, JAP Training Centre, Padma and Jungle
Welfare School, Netarhat.
11. Similarly, on 06.03.2018, recruits through L.D.C.E. were
directed to report for training at Jharkhand Police Academy, Hazaribagh
on 11.03.2018.
12. It is also an undisputed fact that training of direct recruits was
completed earlier in point of time and vide various Departmental Orders,
services of direct recruits were confirmed with effect from 06.08.2021.
13. However, appointees through Limited Departmental
Examination had undergone their first semester of training between the
period 11.03.2018 to 31.07.2018 followed by District Practical Training
of 01.08.2018 to 31.07.2019, second semester training was from
05.09.2021 to 03.01.2022 and, accordingly, their services were
confirmed on completion of training with effect from 02.08.2022. These
facts are not in dispute between the parties.
SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS
14. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Manoj Tondon, Advocate
and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate primarily advanced arguments on
behalf of Petitioners. Overlapping arguments have been advanced by
above counsels apart from individual specific argument which is
cumulatively noted herein for brevity.
15. The main point of argument of Petitioners is that although
Private Respondents i.e. Limited Departmental Examination candidates
were recruited earlier in point of time, their services were confirmed
10
2026:JHHC:32694
nd
only after completion of their training with effect from 2 August, 2022;
whereas services of Writ Petitioners were confirmed with effect from
06.08.2021 and, thus, in terms of Rule 689(C), Petitioners would be
treated as senior to that of Private Respondents, as their actual
recruitment precedes the date than that of Private Respondents. Heavy
reliance was placed upon the term ‘actually” used in Rule 689(C),
Chapter-22 of Jharkhand Police Manual to contend that the term
“actually” has been interpreted by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of
“Madeva Upendra Sinai & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors,” (1975) 3
SCC 765 (Paras 15 to 17) and “Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Doom
Dooma India Ltd., ” (2009) 4 SCC 427 (Paras 2, 10, 12 & 13), to connote
something which actually has taken effect or granted or given the effect
to.
16. It was vehemently submitted that although confirmation of
service would relate back to the date of initial appointment, but the same
would not confer consequential seniority to Private Respondent in view
of Rule 682(d) of Jharkhand Police Manual, which provides that the
period spent on training and on probation will count as ‘service towards
pension’. By placing reliance upon said Rules, it was contended that had
the intention of the framers of Rules was to confer seniority even in
respect of the period spent for training and on probation, the same would
have been specifically enumerated under the Rules. Attention was
invited to Rules 653, 659, 682 and 689(C) of the Police Manual and it
was submitted that these Rules were to be construed harmoniously being
11
2026:JHHC:32694
the governing principle for appointment, training, probation and
seniority between the Petitioner and Private Respondents.
17. Reliance was placed upon clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of appointment
letters of Private Respondents, and, it was contended that under said
appointment letter, it was clearly stipulated that recruitment was purely
temporary in nature which was subject to completion of training of two
years in Jharkhand Police Academy, Hazaribagh and during the said
period, recruits appointed through LDCE were to remain under
probation. It was clearly stipulated in the appointment letter that in the
event, a candidate fails to obtain basic training and successfully passes
the same, the employee would not be entitled for confirmation of his
service including increment in pay. The appointment letter further
stipulated that if any candidate, during training or probation period,
resigns from service, the said candidate will have to pay the entire
expenditure on training.
18. Further reliance was placed upon Rule 27 of Rules of 2016
read with Appendix-41, to contend inter alia that Appendix 41 vide Sl.
No. 5, was amended to incorporate therein the period when candidates
appointed through Limited Departmental Examination would be deemed
to be on Probation. Further, Rule 28 of Rules of 2016 was relied upon to
contend that anything not governed under Rules of 2016 would be
governed through the applicable Code, Rules, Regulations, Instructions
and Police Manual. On the strength of above, it was contended that
Police Manual would apply with equal force both in favour of Petitioners
12
2026:JHHC:32694
and Private Respondents and their service conditions, including
seniority, would be governed under the Police Manual.
19. An alternative argument was advanced by Mr. Manoj Tondon,
Advocate that since method of recruitment of Private Respondent is alien
to the method of recruitment provided under Police Manual, provisions
of the Police Manual would not apply. Reliance was placed upon various
Service Rules framed by State of Jharkhand, like, Jharkhand Secretariat
Clerical Service Rules, 2010 and Jharkhand Secretariat Clerical Service
Recruitment Rules, 2012 to contend, inter alia that under the said Rules,
it is clearly laid down that if recruitment process started at an earlier
point of time for direct recruits, though their appointments were made on
subsequent date with that of promotees, the direct recruits would stand
senior to the promotees. It was contended that process of direct
recruitment was initiated by issuing requisition dated 06.01.2017,
whereas requisition for recruitment through LDCE was issued
subsequently. Even advertisements were issued anterior in point of time
for direct recruitment and merely because recruits through LDCE have
been appointed earlier in point of time than that of Petitioners, they
cannot be treated as senior to Petitioners.
20. Lastly, it was submitted that Respondent-State of Jharkhand
itself prepared a Seniority List vide Memo No. 667/P dated 13.07.2021,
which was the first Seniority List published in the year 2021, wherein,
admittedly, names of Private Respondents/candidates appointed through
LDCE, were not included, as their services were not confirmed.
13
2026:JHHC:32694
However, in subsequent Provisional Seniority List dated 09.11.2023, the
candidates appointed through Limited Departmental Examination were
shown as senior to Writ Petitioners, which led filing of objections and
representations by Writ Petitioners and other similarly situated recruits.
However, the State Government, ignoring the aforesaid aspect,
proceeded to finalize the Seniority List vide impugned Order contained
in Memo No. 951/P dated 09.09.2024, wherein persons appointed
through LDCE were shown as senior. This order has been impugned and
assailed in the manner stated above. Petitioners have relied upon
following Judgments:-
( i) Union of India & Anr. V. Afroz Ahmed & Ors., 2006 (88) DRJ 478 (DB),
relevant paras 8, 11, 14.
(ii) Ashok Ram Parhad and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others,
(2023) 18 SCC 768, relevant paras 18, 27, 28, 30, 31.
(iii) Madeva Upendra Sinai and Othe4rs v. Union of India and Others,
(1975) 3 SCC 765, relevant paras 15, 16, 17.
(iv) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Doom Dooma India Limited, (2009) 4
SCC 427, relevant paras 2,10,12,13.
(v) Krishna Rai (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others v.
Banaras Hindu University and Others, (2022) 8 SCC 713.
(vi) Mukesh Kumar and Anr.v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2017 SCC
O\nLine Jhaar 3629
9. Jharkhand Police Association v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(S) No. 6233 of
2016.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
21. Mr. Rohit Roy, learned A.G, assisted by Ms. Oishi Das, AC to
AG argued on behalf of State of Jharkhand. Reliance was placed upon
Counter Affidavit and reference was made to Police Order No. 102 dated
08.02.1983 and it was contended that in terms of the said order it was
decided that seniority will be determined by totalling the number secured
by the direct appointee in the Police Training Centre and the number
14
2026:JHHC:32694
secured in the selection examination. It was contended that following the
above principle, final seniority list contained in Memo No. 951/P dated
09.09.2024 has been prepared. However, at the same breath, it was
argued that in terms of Rule 689(c) of Police Manual, since LDCE
candidates were appointed on 11.03.2018, whereas direct recruit
candidates were appointed on 06.08.2018, as per Police Manual LDCE
candidates have been rightly declared senior to that of direct recruits.
22. Mr. Nawnitti Prasad Singh, Ld. Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr.
Shresth Gautam, Advocate, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Arpan Mishra, Advocate and Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate advanced
arguments on behalf of Private Respondents. It was argued that under
Police Manual, there were essentially two recognized methods for
appointment i.e. direct appointment and promotion, and, a third
recruitment process was created by State of Jharkhand by virtue of Rules
of 2016 under which promotional post was divided into prescribed quota,
and, out of total 50% promotional quota, 25% was to be filled up by
promotion from Assistant Sub-Inspectors and balance 25% was to be
filled up through LDCE. It was, thus, contended that LDCE candidates
cannot be treated as newly appointed, rather, their case should be treated
as promotion at par with other Assistant Sub-Inspectors. It was argued
that under the scheme of Police Manual read with Rules of 2016, LDCE
candidates were also required to undergo training. It was contended that
first semester training of LDCE candidates was completed from
11.03.2018 to 31.07.2018 followed by District Practical Training from
15
2026:JHHC:32694
01.08.2018 to 31.07.2019, but subsequent training commenced from
05.09.2021 to 03.01.2022 and the delay in completion of the training was
not attributable to Private Respondents, but to the Training Directorate.
On the strength of above, it was contended that for no fault of Private
Respondents in completion of training, they cannot be made junior to
Writ Petitioners who were, admittedly, appointed subsequent to the date
of appointment of Private Respondents.
23. In any event, it was contended that after Private Respondents
completed their training, the same relates back to the date of their initial
appointment and completion of training does not create a new date of
appointment, rather, it relates back to original date of employment. In
this regard, reliance was placed upon following Judgments:-
(i) High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. state of Haryana, (1975) 1 SCC
843, Para-49.
(ii) L. Chandrakishore Singh, v. State of Manipur, (1999) 8 SCC 287, Para-
15
(iii) T. Valsan v. K. Kanagraj, (2023) 8 SCC 614, Para 22
24. It was further contended that the core question for
determination in the present case is ‘whether date of appointment is
relevant for determining seniority’ , or ‘whether date of confirmation in
service is relevant for determining seniority’ . It was contended that the
date of confirmation would relate back to the date of initial appointment
and even if Private Respondents were confirmed in service later in point
of time, the same would have no effect as said confirmation would relate
back to the date of their initial appointment.
16
2026:JHHC:32694
25. It was further argued that Jharkhand Police Manual is not a
statutory Rule, but merely is an executive instruction and, therefore,
General Service Jurisprudence in determining seniority should be
applied, and, date of initial appointment becomes the relevant date for
determination of seniority as per General Service Law principle.
Extensive reliance was placed upon Judgment in the case of K.
Meghachandra Singh & Ors. V. Ningam Siro & Ors, (2020) 5 SCC
689 to contend inter alia that as per General Principle, no employee can
claim seniority from the date when said employee was not even born in
the cadre. While distinguishing the Judgment relied upon by Petitioner,
Respondents relied upon the decision in the case of State of Orissa and
Ors v. Md. Illiyas, (2006) 1 SCC 275 and contended, inter alia, that
Judgment is to be read as applicable to the particular facts proved or
assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which are
found there are not intended to be the exposition of the whole law. On
the strength of above, it was submitted that seniority determined by
Respondent-State is not liable to be interfered with by this Court.
26. Having considered rival submissions, following questions
arise for consideration by this Court:-
(I) Whether candidates appointed through the process of LDCE should be
treated as ‘Promotees’ or their candidature would be treated as
“Appointment By Promotion”?
(II) Whether Rule 689(c) of Police Manual lays down the principle of
determination of inter-se seniority of Sub-Inspectors, or the principle of
17
2026:JHHC:32694
seniority is to be determined on the General Principle of Service
Jurisprudence?
(III) Whether training period should be counted for the purposes of seniority
and what would be the meaning of the term ‘actually recruited or
promoted against permanent post as contained in Rule 689(c)?
ISSUE NO. (I) Whether candidates appointed
through the process of LDCE should be treated as
“Promotees” or their candidature would be treated
as “Appointment By Promotion?
27. Rule 653 of Police Manual contains provisions for
appointment of Sub-Inspectors. Said Rule, for brevity, is quoted herein-
under:-
“653. Sub-Inspectors.—(a) In July, the Inspector-General will intimate
to each Deputy Inspector-General the number of vacancies allotted to
each district and the Criminal Investigation/Intelligence Departments
and the number to be filled by direct recruitment and by promotion of
Assistant Sub-Inspector. He will also indicate that limitations, if any, are
to be observed as to the appointment of any particular sections of the
community.
(b) In accordance with rule 659(a) vacancies up to 50 per cent may
be filled by selection from the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. The
remainder shall be filled in the manner laid down in the following rules.
(c) A requisition shall be sent to Bihar Public Service Commission in
the prescribed form in which the informations about the number of
vacant posts, etc. shall be given. The job of holding examination for
recruitment to Class III technical and non-technical executive and
supervisory posts (including Sub-Inspector) has been given to Bihar
Public Service Commission as per article 320(1) of the Indian
Constitution.”
28. A bare perusal of said Rule clearly reveals that Sub-Inspectors
were to be appointed through direct recruitment and by promotion, and,
50 per cent of the seats were to be filled up by selection from the rank of
Assistant Sub-Inspector through promotion.
18
2026:JHHC:32694
29. Rule 654 to 658 extensively deals with the manner of selection
which is required to be followed for direct recruitment on the post of
Sub-Inspector. Similarly, Rule 659 provided for the manner of
promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspector in the rank of Sub-Inspector and
Rule 659(a) and (g), which are relevant in the present context, is
extracted herein:-
“659. Promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, -- (a) 50 per cent of the
vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector shall be filled by selection from
the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector who have at least done a minimum of
five years service. Only selected officers who have shown exceptional
merit while serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector will be promoted.
Xxx xxx xxx
(g) Assistant Sub-Inspector shall be on probation for a period of
twelve months from the date of the order promoting them to the rank of
Sub-Inspector.”
30. A perusal of Rule 659(a) of Police Manual clearly reveals that
selection from the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector in the vacancies of
Sub-Inspector required a minimum five years of service on the post of
Assistant Sub-Inspector and only such officers were to be selected who
have shown exceptional merit while serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector.
Rule 659(g) further provided for probation of twelve months from the
date of the order promoting Assistant Sub-Inspector to the rank of Sub-
Inspector.
31. Under Rules of 2016, State Government created another
category for entry in the rank of Sub-Inspector and amended Rule 653
and 659 and provided that out of 50% vacancies to be filled up by
promotion from Assistant Sub-Inspector to the post of Sub-Inspector,
25% vacancies would be filled up through LDCE from officers primarily
subordinate in rank to that of Assistant Sub-Inspector.
19
2026:JHHC:32694
32. The procedure provided for entry in the cadre of Sub-Inspector
under Rules of 2016 was almost akin to the procedure laid down under
Rules 654 to 658 relating to direct recruitment on the post of Sub-
Inspector.
33. The vires of Rule 7(ka) and (kha) of ‘Jharkhand State Police
Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
Appointment Rules (Recruitment Procedure),2016 was challenged before
this Court. This Court negated the said challenge and held as under:-
“6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties, gone through the relevant materials on record and also
the relevant provisions of the Police Act, 1861; Police Manual and the
impugned Rules itself.
7. We may, at the outset, observe that the instant Rules are
altogether new Rules framed by the employer State for giving an
opportunity for appointment to the serving Police Personnel of the
rank of Constable and Havildar for appointment to a post of Sub-
Inspector through limited departmental competitive exam. The Police
Manual does not provide for direct appointment through limited
departmental competitive exam to a Police Personnel of the rank of
Constable/Havildar to the post of Sub-Inspector. Police Manual, apart
from laying down other provisions in relation the service of a Police
Personnel, also makes provisions for promotion to higher post. It also
lays down the punishment, major or minor to be imposed in case of
established misconduct. It also lays down the provisions of appeal and
memorial against such orders of punishment. The comparison of the
Rules relating to promotion as provided under the Police Manual with
that of the impugned Rules which lay down a quota and eligibility
criteria for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector through limited
departmental competitive exam, is therefore far-fetched. While there is
enough rational on the part of the employer to provide the period
during which the effect of major or minor punishment may operate
and may be a criterion for consideration to higher promotions during
the entire service career of an employee, the impugned rules also have
a definite rational in laying down the eligibility criteria as such.
8. There is a conscious decision on the part of the employer-State to
lay down more stringent eligibility criteria for appointment directly to
the post of Sub-Inspector from the rank of Constable or Havildar of a
personnel who not only competes on merits but has otherwise a
complete clean service record. The significance of having a clean
service record of a Police Personnel holding a post of Sub-Inspector
cannot be lost sight of as he exercises authority over the subordinate
20
2026:JHHC:32694
rank of personnel like Constable, Havildar or Assistant Sub-Inspector
in the Police Force. It may also happen that a meritorious candidate
with a rather unclean service record (having faced a major
punishment) can still be appointed as a Sub-Inspector and exercises
authority on the subordinate Police Personnel who may otherwise
have a clean service record but may not have competed on merits. In
an uniformed Police Force such a situation would have a
demoralising effect on the subordinate Police Personnel who
otherwise has a clean service record. The instant issue can be looked
at from another angle as well. By the ordinary channels of promotion
rd
the post of Sub-Inspector is perhaps 3 in hierarchy to the rank of
Constable while through the instant limited departmental exam the
Police Personnel at dthe bottom of rank as a Constable does have a
chance to get appointed as a Sub-Inspector through the limited quota
of 25% of that cadre. The rules for limited departmental competitive
exam therefore in a larger perspective provides incentive to the Police
Personnel to maintain a clean record and creates a disincentive for
Police Personnel who are unable to maintain clean service record
even on the rank of Constable or Havildar.
9. From the perspective of the Police Force it will also be desirable
that the personnel of a rank of Sub-Inspector of Police or Inspector of
Police is not only meritorious and physically fit, but has an absolutely
clean service record. It adds to the image of the Police Force and
creates a sense of respect amongst the junior Police Personnel
towards his superior as well.” (See: Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v.
State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2017, SCC OnLine Jhar 3629)
34. In view of aforesaid Judgment and provisions contained under
Rules of 2016, this Court is of the firm opinion that entry in the rank of
Sub-Inspector through LDCE is not by that way of “promotion”, but by
way of “appointment by promotion”. Issue No. (i) is answered
accordingly.
ISSUE NO. (II) - Whether Rule 689(c) of Police Manual
lays down the principles of determination of inter-se
seniority of Sub-Inspectors, or the principle of seniority is
to be determined on the General Principles of Service
Jurisprudence?
35. One of the primary contentions of Private Respondents is that
there is no specific Rules governing inter-se seniority dispute; therefore,
21
2026:JHHC:32694
in absence of such Rule, the matter must be governed by settled Service
Jurisprudence. A sequel to the aforesaid argument is that an employee’s
seniority would relate back to the date of initial appointment and a
person cannot claim seniority from a period anterior to the date from
which he/she was born in the cadre.
36. There is no dispute to aforesaid proposition of law that,
ordinarily, seniority is to be determined from the date of initial
appointment, and, a person cannot claim seniority from a date anterior to
the date from which he/she was born in the cadre. However, in the
opinion of this Court, the contentions advanced by Respondents
including the contention advanced, in alternative, by Petitioner that there
is no Seniority Rules governing the case of Petitioners and Private
Respondents, is wholly misconceived. Relevant rule for determining the
seniority of Sub-Inspector is Rule 689(c)of Police Manual, which is
extracted hereunder:-
“689. (a) The seniority of Indian Police Service Officers will be
regulated according to All India Services Rules and orders relating
thereto.
(b) The place of an officer of the Bihar Police Service shall, on
promotion to the Indian Police Service, be determined in accordance
with the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,
1955.
(c) The seniority of all the Sub-Inspectors and Deputy
Superintendents in their respective ranks, whether recruited directly or
promoted will be counted from the dates on which they were actually
recruited or promoted against permanent post.”
37. Rules of 2016, which was framed in exercise of powers under
Article 309 read with Section 46(3) of The Police Act, 1861, vide Rule
28, specifically provided that any subject or context not dealt with in the
said Rules, would be governed by the Rules, Code, Circular, Instructions
22
2026:JHHC:32694
and Police Manual framed by State of Jharkhand. Rule 28 of Rules of
2016 is quoted hereunder: -
fuoZpu%& bl fu;ekoyh esa ftu fo"k;ksa ;k ckrksa dk lekos’k@izko/kku ugha gks ldk
gS] muds fy, jkT; ljdkj dh izklafxd lafgrk@fu;ekoyh@ladYi@vuqns’k rFkk
iqfyl gLrd esa of.kZr izko/kku ykxw gksxsaA
38. Respondents, in their Counter Affidavit, referred to Police
Order No. 102 dated 08.02.1983 to contend, inter alia, that seniority will
be determined by totalling the number secured by direct appointee in the
PTC and the number secured in the selection examination, and, it was
contended that seniority was determined on the aforesaid principle.
39. This court is of the opinion that Police Order No. 102 is
applicable for determining inter-se seniority amongst direct recruits and
is not relevant for deciding inter-se seniority between direct recruits,
promotees and/or entrant in the rank of Sub-Inspector through
“appointment by promotion”. In fact, in the Counter Affidavit,
Respondent-State has specifically relied upon Rule 689(c) of the Police
Manual and has contended that since LDCE candidates were appointed
on 11.03.2018, whereas direct recruits were appointed on 06.08.2018,
seniority has been determined from the date of initial appointment. Thus,
State Government itself is accepting the applicability of Rule 689(c) for
the purpose of determination of inter-se seniority, which in the opinion
of this Court, is a correct stand. Accordingly, it is held that inter-se
seniority shall be determined between direct recruits, promotees and
LDCE recruits in terms of Rule 689(c) of Police Manual.
23
2026:JHHC:32694
ISSUE NO. (III) - Whether training period should be
counted for the purposes of seniority and what would be
the meaning of the term ‘actually recruited or promoted
against permanent post’ as contained in Rule 689(c)?
40. The question whether training period should be counted for
the purpose of seniority depends upon the Rules, and in absence of
Rules, upon decision taken by the authority.
41. As already held above, Rule 689(c) of Police Manual provides
for determination of inter-se seniority and its interpretation read with
other enabling rules providing for recruitment to the post of Sub-
Inspector would be determining factor for this Court to determine as to
whether direct recruits would stand senior to LDCE candidates or vice
versa.
42. Rule 689(c) uses the term “ actually recruited or promoted
against permanent post”. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Madeva Upendra Sinai and Ors . (supra), while interpreting the word
‘actually’ , held that the word ‘actually’ is a comparable statutory
setting, and the term is used in contradistinction to what is merely
notional, deemed, or provisional, and requires the relevant event to have
truly and effectively taken place.
43. The aforesaid decision was reiterated in the case of Doom
Dooma India Limited (supra) and it was held that the expression
“actually” imports a requirement of real and effective operation of the
relevant fact, and is deliberately used by the Legislature to exclude
constructions based on a merely formal or provisional state of affairs.
24
2026:JHHC:32694
44. The term ‘recruitment’ and ‘appointment’ has been subject
matter of interpretation in a series of Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme
Court and it has been held that the term “recruitment” connotes and
clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for
appointment, and, in contradistinction the word “appointment” means an
actual act of posting a person to a particular office.
45. It has been further held that although the word “recruitment”
and “appointment” connotes different meaning, but are also used
interchangeable under the Service Rules.
46. In context of the present case, the word used i.e. “actually”,
“recruited” and “promoted” is of immense significance as what was
intended by Rule Making Authority was to exclude constructions based
on a merely formal or provisional state of affairs. The term “actually”
deployed before the words recruited/promoted in the Rules would mean
that recruitment/promotion should not be merely notional or provisional
and requires the relevant event to have truly and effectively taken place.
47. Aforesaid interpretation is further supported by other rules
contained in Police Manual relating to recruitment,
promotion/appointment by way of promotion to the rank of Sub-
Inspector.
48. As already enumerated above in detail, promoted Sub-
Inspector, under Rule 689, is to remain on probation for a period of
twelve months and, in terms of Appendix-93, Clause-9, is only required
to undergo three months’ promotional course for confirmation of their
25
2026:JHHC:32694
service on promotional post. The reason is obvious as promotee Sub-
Inspectors have already worked on the immediate lower post of Assistant
Sub-Inspector and it is for the said reason, probation period and tranining
period is minimal as compared to direct recruits, or recruits appointed by
promotion.
49. Rule 681 contains in details the training programme which is
required to be undergone by direct recruit Sub-Inspector. Rules 681. I(a)
& (b) is quoted hereunder:-
“681. Sub-Inspectors other than reserve Sub-Inspectors. – (a)
Institutional Training of Sub-Inspectors.—All Sub-Inspectors appointed
direct shall undergo one year’s training course at the Police Training
College as laid down in the rules of the College and in Appendix 93. The
first Session will usually commence on the Second January.
(b) Practical Training.—On the successful completion of the training
course the Sub-Inspectors shall be given practical training for two years
during which period they shall be on probation. At the end of the entire
training period directly recruited Sub-Inspectors will be confirmed by
the Deputy Inspector-General.”
50. Appendix 93 contains detailed training programme, which, for
the sake of ready reference, is quoted hereunder:-
APPENDIX 93
TRAINING PROGRAMME
[RULES 681 and 682(e)]
1. Training Programmes are four-fold in nature :-
(i) Initial on appointments.
(ii) Promotional.
(iii) Refresher.
(iv) In-service specialist.
2. Except for routine programme of target practice and day to day parade and
institutional classes, all training will be imparted at the training institutes in
or outside the State.
3. Each Training Institute or Centre should have a detailed book of standing
orders based on a standard training manual, to be prepared centrally and if
necessary approved by the Government. Contract should be maintained with
the standing committee on training in the Bureau of Police Research and
Development, New Delhi.
4. Each Training should include items of indoor visual training and may also
include visits to places of interest in and outside the State.
5. Some important common subjects for various types of desirable training
courses are given in the clauses below and their syllabus is given in
Annexures A, B and C which are also not exhaustive. The periods to be
26
2026:JHHC:32694
allotted to different types of courses are to vary according to the necessity of
different ranks and also on the educational standards of trainees. It is,
however, to be noted that a subject entitled, as for example, “I.P.C.” on
“National Integration, is noted in all the training courses but it is obvious
that bare elementary aspect will be taught to constables, while more
important and detail training will be given to other ranks depending on
requirements.
6. Training programmes applicable to various specialised branches of Police
are indicated in the connected chapters. The details will have to be shown in
a Training Manual. The training for A.P.Ps. newly recruited are indicated in
rule 681.
7. (a) Assistant/Deputy Superintendents of Police after 5 years’ service should
attend a refresher course of eight weeks at a Police Training College. A
second course will be attended after 10 years of service and this should be of
a similar duration.
(b) Reserve and Circle Inspectors selected for promotion to the rank of
Deputy Superintendents shall be given 3 months’ training at Police Training
College. Reserve Inspectors on promotion to the rank of Deputy
Superintendent, shall be given a special Orientation Course so that they are
fully acquainted with the subjects concerning investigation and unarmed
police. In the same way, Circle Inspectors promoted to Deputy
Superintendents in the armed Battalions shall be given an Orientation
Course so that they are aware of the organization etc., of the armed force. In
addition to this Deputy Superintendents who have been promoted from
armed and unarmed cadre, shall be given instructions concerning
supervision in the different branches of District Police Office for 4 weeks.
(c) (i) From Sub-Inspector to Circle Inspector.—For promotion from the
rank of Sub-Inspector to the rank of Circle Inspector, there shall be a
Probation Course for four weeks. In the training period, training shall be
give on supervision and leadership, scrutiny of case diaries of Crime,
manner of dealing with organized crimes, departmental enquiries and the
manner of knowing complaints of public and the method of removing them.
(ii) From Sub-Inspector to Reserve Inspector.—For promotion from the
rank of Sub-Inspector to Reserve Inspector, four weeks promotion course
shall have to be done. In this, the trainees shall be taught in (1) company’s
administration, training and command, (2) conducting departmental
enquiries and (3) leadership and supervision. In this promotion course,
subjects concerning human behaviour, etc. shall also be included.
8. Practical Training of promoted Sub-Inspectors.— Those who have been
promoted from the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector will do a separate
training course for 3 months and will be confirmed according to vacancies.
9. Assistantd Sub-Inspector to Sub-Inspector Promotion Course.—There shall
be three months’ promotion course for assistant Sub-Inspectors selected for
promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector. In this course, special emphasis
should be on supervision and leadership, prevention and investigation of
crime (with special reference to gang cases, heinous crime and scientific
aids), social defence, new legislations and court rulings and maintenance of
law and order.
10. (a) Havildars to Reserve Sub-Inspectors.—A promotion course
should
be held which will be of three months’ duration. Instructions should be
given about the duties and responsibilities of a platoon commander.
Additional subjects to be taught are maintenance of registers,
documents, etc. of a platoon, duties of reserve office, platoon and
company Drills etc. The Havildars who pass the examination shall work
as probationers for one year in the rank of Sub-Inspectors.
27
2026:JHHC:32694
(b) Refresher Course.—A four weeks’ Refresher Course for reserve Sub-
Inspectors will be conducted after every seven years. The training will be
similar to what is given above.
11. Refresher Course.—All Havildars and Assistant Sub-Inspectors who have
put in seven years of service in their respective ranks, should be required to
undergo at interval of every seven years, a refresher course of four weeks’
duration including one week at the State Forensic Science Laboratory.”
51. A perusal of Rule 681 read with Appendix 93 would leave no
manner of doubt that Sub-Inspector appointed directly is required to
undergo one year Training in Police Training Centre and has to receive
Practical Training for two years, during which period, they shall be on
probation and would be only confirmed after successful completion of
training. The provision relating to training, as contained in Police
Manual, has been incorporated under Rules of 2016, and, Rule 27 of
Rules of 2016 specifically reads as under :-
Þizf'k{k.k%& lhfer foHkkxh; izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls fu;qfDr iqfyl
voj fujh{kd dks in ds vuq#i vFkok tSlk fd egkfuns’kd ,oa iqfyl
egkfujh{kd] >kj[k.M] jk¡ph }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk;] izf’k{k.k izkIr djuk
vfuok;Z gksxk rFkk os nks o"kksZ rd ifjoh{;eku jgsxsaA bl laca/k esa iqfyl
gLrd Hkkx&3 ds ifjf’k"V&41 ds Øekad&05 esa lhfer foHkkxh; izfr;ksfxrk
ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls fu;qfDr ds fy, ifjoh{kk vof/k 02 o"kZ gksus dk lekos’k
fd;k tkrk gSAÞ
52. The said Rule also compulsorily provides for training and
further provides that LDCE candidates would be on Probation for a
period of two years. Appointment Letter of LDCE, vide Clauses 2 to 5,
specifically incorporate aforesaid facts and further clearly provides, inter
alia, that services would be confirmed only after completion of training
and services would be purely temporary before such confirmation. It was
also provided that in the event a candidate resigns from service during
28
2026:JHHC:32694
Probation and/or Training period, the amount spent on training of such
candidate shall be recovered from the candidate.
53. Thus, the State Government consciously, while framing
enabling Rules for direct recruits or LDCE candidates, emphasised on
the need of training to be imparted to such candidates and confirmation
of service only upon completion of training. Reference in this regard
may further be made to provisions of Rule 682 of the Police Manual,
which reads as under:
“682 (a) Extension of probationary period.—If in any case the Deputy
Inspector-General does not find it possible to form a definite opinion, the
officer concerned shall be transferred to another district, and shall
remain on probation there for a further period of one year, in order that
fresh and independent opinion from another Superintendent may be
obtained on his work.
At the end of this period, the Deputy Inspector-General shall either
confirm or discharge the officer.
(b) Discharge.—The Inspector-General may discharge a
probationary Sub-Inspector at any time during the period of his
probation, if he is satisfied that the probationer is not likely to become a
satisfactory police officer. Rules for show cause are given in rule 668(a)
(c) Explanation from course of training.—The Inspector-General can
exempt Sub-Inspector or their equivalent ranks from undergoing the
usual course of training and officers already under training from
completing the course and passing the final examination of the Police
Training College, prior to their confirmation in the rank of Sub-
Inspector or its equivalent rank. This power will be exercised with
caution and in cases in which it concerns public interest. If any trainee
during the period of training suffers such an injury as a result of which
he is not able to appear in every subject, in such circumstances, the
Inspector-General may exempt such officer from appearing in those
subjects.
(d) The period spent under training and on probation will count as
service towards pension.
(e) Till such time as all the courses given in this chapter and
appendix 93 are not arranged, at least all the initial recruits training
course in different ranks and the refresher course (Rule 681) and
promotion course [Rule 684(1)] should be arranged in consultation with
the Principal, Police Training College. Officers of the rank of Inspectors
shall be given a six weeks training in Advanced Training School at Patna
also as per rule 681/I (d).
29
2026:JHHC:32694
54. A perusal of Rule 682 clearly provides for Extension of
probationary period, and, Discharge of Probationary Sub-Inspector on
being found by the Inspector-General that Probationer is not likely to
become a satisfactory Police Officer. Rules 682(d) has been extensively
relied upon by both the sides. While Petitioners contend that said Rule
clearly provides that period spent under training and/or probation should
have been counted only for the purpose of Pension and not towards
seniority, Respondents contend that said Rule provides for counting of
period spend under training and/or probation as ‘In-service period” and,
thus, automatically the said period would be considered for the purpose
of determining seniority.
55. Having considered rival submissions and on careful
examination of Rule 682(d), I am of the opinion that the maxim
expressio unius est exclusio alterius (expression of one is the exclusion
of another) would apply with full force here. The Rule expressly
provides that period spent by a candidate under training and on probation
shall be counted only for the purpose of Pension and for no other
purpose including seniority. The term ‘seniority’ in particular, is
conspicuously and deliberately excluded from the scope of Rule 689(d).
Had the framers of the Police Manual intended that the
probationary/training period be also reckoned for the purpose of
seniority, nothing prevented them from saying so in as many words,
exactly as they did for Pension. Their conspicuous silence on seniority,
in a provision that otherwise goes out of its way to specify pension, is a
30
2026:JHHC:32694
deliberate legislative choice and must be respected by this Court, rather
than read down or explained away.
56. This can be illustrated by considering Rule 682(a), which
provides for extension of Probation period. Under the said Rules, if in
the opinion of Deputy Inspector-General, extension is required for a
candidate for being satisfied that said candidate can appropriately
perform the duty on the appointed post, probation period of said
candidate can be extended. For example, if five candidates are appointed
on the same date and are required to undergo Probation, which includes
training/practical training, and, if out of five candidates, two candidates,
in the opinion of Deputy Inspector-General, on completion of
probation/training period, have not performed satisfactorily for being
confirmed in service and are granted extension in probation period of
one year, then it would be travesty of justice that if, later on, such two
candidates, after completion of extended probation period, are confirmed
in service and are ranked senior to other three candidates who have
successfully completed the training/probation and whose services were
earlier confirmed without extending their probation period.
57. Rule 682(d) read with Rule 689(c) form a coherent and
internally consistent scheme i.e. the latter fixes the reckoning point for
seniority at the date of actual recruitment to the permanent post i.e. upon
confirmation; the former reinforces this scheme by expressly excluding
the antecedent training/probation period from that reckoning, save for
the limited purpose of pensionary benefit. There is, on this scheme,
31
2026:JHHC:32694
simply no room left for the Private Respondents to claim seniority with
effect from their provisional engagement, as upon confirmation of
service, actual recruitment would take place.
58. During arguments, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate invited
attention of this Court to Supplementary Affidavit filed in the case of
Praveen Kumar Gupta & Ors. [W.P.(S) No. 5407 of 2025] being
Annexure SA-16. In the said Annexure, it was clearly noted inter alia
that final examination, consequent upon training, was conducted of
LDCE candidates in the month of December, 2021, and, vide Memo No.
1102 dated 02.08.2022, LDCE candidates were declared to have
successfully completed training. Attention of this Court was also invited
to Annexure SA-20 at Serial No. 195, wherein the date of confirmation
of service of Respondent No.5-Mukesh Kumar was noted as 02.08.2022.
Several other entries in the said Annexure were referred like Entry Nos.
21, 45, 51, 57 etc. wherein services of LDCE candidates were confirmed
with effect from 02.08.2022 by clearly recording, inter alia, that services
are confirmed on successful completion of basic training (Buniyadi
Prashikshan Utirnta) . In the said Notification, further several entries,
including entries of some of the Writ Petitioners, were shown, which
shows that services of Writ Petitioners were confirmed with effect from
06.08.2021 i.e. the date on which Writ Petitioners completed training,
including Practical training.
59. On the strength of above, it was argued that confirmation of
service is an important facet under the Police Manual and before the said
32
2026:JHHC:32694
date, an employee was merely a Probationer and could have been
discharged at any point of time.
60. I have carefully perused Annexure SA-16 which clearly
records that LDCE candidates were declared to have successfully
completed their training on 06.08.2022 and have also carefully perused
Annexure SA-20 which records that LDCE candidates’ services have
been confirmed with effect from the date of successful completion of
training.
61. The Judgment cited by Mr. Sinha that confirmation of service
relates back to initial appointment is a well settled law and requires no
elaboration. However, the question involved herein is not relating to
confirmation of service, but relating to inter-se seniority between two
categories of candidates. Aforesaid is a general principle i.e. default rule
would apply to fill a vacuum left in any statutory guidelines. However,
as already held above, there is a specific provision for determination of
inter-se seniority and the general principle must yield to the service rules
which already occupied the field.
62. In the present case, Jharkhand Police Manual does not leave
open the question of seniority of Sub-Inspectors of Police to be worked
out by resort to general principle, as it deals with subject specifically and
exhaustively through Rule 689(c). Even Rule 682(d) excludes the period
of training/probation except for counting it towards Pension.
63. In the cumulative facts mentioned hereinabove, the Judgments
cited at Bar by Respondents are clearly distinguishable especially in
33
2026:JHHC:32694
view of the fact that under the Police Manual, due emphasis and
importance is given to completion of training both at Training Academy
or Physical training and confirmation of service thereafter.
64. No doubt, that Private Respondents were appointed earlier in
point of time, though advertisement process of Writ Petitioners were
initiated earlier in point of time. While Private Respondents contend that
their training was delayed due to reasons not attributable to them and
they cannot be made to suffer for delay in completion of training, the
Writ Petitioners contend that their recruitment process was initiated
earlier in point of time, but their appointment has been delayed for the
reasons not attributable to them. This Court is not impressed with either
of the arguments advanced by Writ Petitioners and Respondents
regarding delay either in appointment and/or completion of training, as
such delays are not alien in the administrative set up. What is relevant is
the determination of inter-se seniority on the basis of existing Rules
governing the field.
65. In view of cumulative facts and circumstances mentioned
hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that the date of completion
of training and consequent order confirming the Sub-Inspectors in
service, is a crucial date for determination of inter-se seniority. The
delayed period spent on training and/or probation under the applicable
Service Rules has been excluded for the purpose of counting of seniority.
66. In view of admitted fact that Private Respondents completed
their training and were confirmed in service later in point of time to that
34
2026:JHHC:32694
of direct recruit candidates, the impugned Seniority List published by
Respondent-State of Jharkhand, contained in Memo No. 951/P dated
09.09.2024 is, hereby quashed and set aside.
67. Respondents are directed to re-arrange and publish the Final
Seniority List by treating the candidates appointed through direct
recruitment as Senior vis-a-vis the candidates appointed through LDCE.
The only exception to above is that if any direct recruit candidate was
not confirmed in service but his/her probation period was extended,
seniority of said candidate would be fixed on the basis of the date when
he or she was confirmed in service.
68. The above exercise would be completed by State of Jharkhand
within a period of ten weeks from the date of this Judgment.
69. This Court specifically records its appreciation to assistance
rendered by Advocates appearing for respective parties, as this Court
feels that complex issue of inter-se seniority could not have been decided
in an expeditious manner by this Court without their able assistance.
70. Having regards to the above discussions, all these Writ
Petitions stand allowed. Pending I.As., if any, also stands disposed of. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
(Deepak Roshan, J)
Dated:06 /11/2026
Amardeep/
.A.F.R/
Uploaded on
6.11.2026
35