RAJEEV KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26914
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 3750 of 2022
……
1. Rajeev Kumar, aged about 41 years, Son of Ramji Prasad,
Resident of Village Nonihat, P.O. Nonihat, P.S. Hansdiha &
District Dumka.
2. Mukesh Kumar, aged about 43 years, Son of Shreekant
Choudhary, Resident of Quarter No. 10/1/7, Road no. 20,
Adityapur & District Seraikella Kharsawan.
3. Akshay Vikram, aged about 41 years, Son of Yugal Kishor
Mahto, Resident of Dulmi, P.O. Harahad Kander, P.S.
Rajrappa & District Ramgarh.
4. Varun Kumar, aged about 42 years, Son of Late Ramdeo
Singh, Resident of Varun Kumar Duplex, B1 Malti Luxuria
City, P.O. Sector 6, P.S. Chas Mufassil & District Bokaro.
5. Samir Das, aged about 39 years, Son of Haradhan Das,
Resident of Village Panderpala, P.O. В Polytechnic, P.S. Bank
More (O.P Bhuli) & District Dhanbad.
6. Nityanand Sah, aged about 37 years, Son of Moti Lal Sah,
Resident of Kusma, P.O. Kusma, P.S. Barhait & District
Sahibganj.
7. Ashish Kumar, aged about 36 years, Son of Late
Gobardhan Prasad Sah, Resident of Village Dudhani (Near
Town Chowk) P.O., P.S. Dumka & District Dumka.
8. Kumar Gaurav, aged about 36 years, Son of Birendra
Prasad, Resident of Ratari, P.O Dugda, P.S. Dudga & District
Bokaro.
9. Md. Wasim, aged about 38 years, Son of Late Md.
Misbahuddin Ansari, Resident of Upper Rajbhari Road, P.O.,
P.S. Jharia & District Dhanbad.
10. Md. Aftab Alam, aged about 38 years, Son of Md. Amanat
Hussain, Resident of Jharia, P.O., P.S. Jharia & District
Dhanbad.
11. Santosh Kumar Mahato, aged about 38 years, Son of
Late Dukhan Mahato, Resident of Pargho, P.O.Tilaiya, P.S.
Barwadda & District Dhanbad.
12. Ujjwal Kumar Verma, aged about 38 years, Son of
Chetanya Kumar Verma, Resident of Village Pokhariya, P.O.
Jamua, P.S. Khaga & District Deoghar.
13.Rajkumar Singh, aged about 32 years, Son of Late Baldeo
Singh, Resident of Village Bhendra, P.O. Gomoh, P.S.
Nawadih & District Dhanbad.
14. Janardan Pandit, aged about 39 years, Son of
Ramchandra Pandit, Resident of Village Rakhabani P.O.,
P.S. Dumka & District Dumka.
15. Purushottam Kumar, aged about 33 years, Son of Om
Prakash Prasad, Resident of Bari Bandh Road, Near St. Mary
1
2026:JHHC:26914
High School, P.O., P.S. Dumka & District Dumka.
...… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of India, having its office at 4th floor Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Under Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of India, having its office at 4th floor Project
Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department,
Jharkhand, having its office at Ranchi College Road, Ranchi
University, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Morabadi& District
Ranchi.
5. The All-India Higher Technical Education, through its
Chairman having its office at Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant
Kunj, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi.
6. The Member Secretary, All India Higher Technical
Education, through its Chairman having its office at Nelson
Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi.
…… Respondents
7. Raj Kumar Prasad, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, having its office at the Office of
Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District Latehar.
8. Mohammed Ahtesham Ahmed, aged about not known to
the petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Gumla, having its office at Office
of the Executive Engineer, Building Construction
Department, Building Division, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & District
Gumla.
9. Mukul Ranjan, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Dhanbad, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department,
Building Division, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad.
10. Satyendra Kumar Choudhary, aged about not known to
the petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, having its
residence at Ram Nagar, Gali No. 04, P.O., P.S. & District
Hazaribagh.
11. Niraj Lakra, aged about not known to the petitioner, Son
of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as Junior
Engineer, Daltonganj, having its office at Office of the
2
2026:JHHC:26914
Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department,
Building Division, Daltonganj, P.O., P.S. & District
Daltonganj.
12. Satish Ranjan Kujur, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Garhwa, having its office at Office
of the Executive Engineer, Building Construction
Department, Building Division, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & District
Garhwa.
13. Sushree Chandralekha Oran, aged about not known to
the petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Ranchi, having its office at the
Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department,
Estimator-1, Building Division-1, Morhabadi, Ranchi, P.O.,
P.S. & District Ranchi.
14. Uttam Kumar Upadhyay, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Dumka, having its office at Office
of the Executive Engineer, Field Survey Division, Advance
Planning, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & District Dumka.
15. Alok Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner, Son
of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as Junior
Engineer, Gumla, having its office at National Highway
Authority of India (NHAI), PIU, Gumla, P.O., P.S. & District
Gumla.
16. Nitesh Prasad, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Latehar, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road
Division, Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District Latehar.
17. Anurag Anand, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Saraikela Kharsawan, having its office at
Office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction
Department, Road Division, Saraikela Kharsawan, P.O., P.S.
& District Saraikela Kharsawan.
18. Bhaskar, aged about not known to the petitioner, Son of
not known to the petitioner, currently posted as Junior
Engineer, Lohardaga, having its office at Office of the Block
Development Officer (B.D.O), Lohardaga, P.O., P.S. & District
Lohardaga.
19 Jitendra Kumar Mishra, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Dumka, having its office at Office
of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Dumka, P.O., P.S. & District Dumka.
3
2026:JHHC:26914
20. Praveen Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Ranchi, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road
Division, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi.
21. Gyan Prakash, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, West Singhbhum, having its office at Office
of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Manoharpur, West Singhbhum, P.O., P.S. &
District West Singhbhum.
22. Manish Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Dumka, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, R.E.O, Works Division, Dumka, P.O.,
P.S. & District Dumka.
23. Md. Rejaul Rahman, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Deoghar, having its office at
Office of the Block Development Officer (B.D.O), Palojori,
Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar.
24. Sunil Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Hazaribagh, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, R.E.O, Works Division, Hazaribagh,
P.O., P.S. & District Hazaribagh.
25. Amlendu Pandey, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Jamtara, having its office at
Office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction
Department, Road Division, Jamtara, P.O., P.S. & District
Jamtara.
26. Rajeev Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Deoghar, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road
Division, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. & District Deoghar.
27. Sunny Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Chatra, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road
Division, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District Chatra.
28. Uday Shankar Singh Choudhary, aged about not known
to the petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner,
currently posted as Junior Engineer, Giridih, having its
office at Office of the Executive Engineer, Building
4
2026:JHHC:26914
Construction Department, Giridih, P.O., P.S. & District
Giridih.
29. Gautam Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Dhanbad, having its office at the office of
Deputy Commissioner (D.C), N.R.E.P, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. &
District Dhanbad.
30. Shashikant Roy, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, having its office at Road Construction
Department, Road Division, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District
Ramgarh.
31. Rajkumar Mahato, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Ranchi, having its office at the
Office of the Executive Engineer, R.E.O, Works Division,
Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi.
32. Neeraj Kumar Mahato, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Ranchi, having its office at the
Office of the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Building
Construction Corporation Limited, P.I.U, Ranchi, 4th Floor,
JSBCCL Building Project Bhawan Campus, P.O., P.S.
Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
33. Pankaj Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Dhanbad, having its office at the Office of
the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad.
34. Amit Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner, Son
of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as Junior
Engineer, Sahebganj, having its office at the Office of the
Executive Engineer, R.E.O, Works Division, Sahebganj, P.O.,
P.S. & District Sahebganj.
35. Kumar Shashi Shekhar, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, having its
office at Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department,
Ground Floor, Project Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District
Ranchi.
36. Dhananjay Kumar Giri, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Jamtara, having its office at the
Office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction
Department, Road Division, Jamtara, P.O., P.S. & District
Jamtara.
37. Rupesh Kumar Dikshit, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
5
2026:JHHC:26914
posted as Junior Engineer, Ranchi, having its office at the
State Highway Authority of Jharkhand (SHAJ), Booty Road,
Morahbadi, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi.
38. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, West Singhbhum, having its
office at Office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction
Department, Road Division, Manoharpur, West Singhbhum,
P.O., P.S. & District West Singhbhum.
39. Mukund Kumar Ranjan, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Latehar, having its office at Office
of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District Latehar.
40. Nihar Ranjan, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Dumka, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, R.E.O, Works Division, Dumka, P.O.,
P.S. & District Dumka
41. Amar Kumar, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Chatra, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department,
Building Division, Chatra, P.O., P.S. & District Chatra.
42. Sanjeev Kumar Seith, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Ranchi, having its office at Office
of the Executive Engineer, Special Works Division, Building
Construction Department, Morahbadi Ranchi, P.O., P.S. &
District Ranchi.
43. Sajjan Kumari, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
Junior Engineer, Bokaro, having its office at Office of the
Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road
Division, Bokaro, P.O., P.S. & District Bokaro.
…. Private Respondents
(Impleaded vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed in I.A.
No. 3765 of 2023)
44. Pankaj Kumar, S/o Kamdeo Prasad Mandal, Aged about
35 years, by Occupation Assistant Engineer Posted at Road
Construction Department, Road Division Dhanbad, Resident
of S/o Kamdeo Prasad Mandal, House No. 150 Ward no. 10,
Gandhi Chowk, Rohini, P.O+P.S Jasidih, Deoghar,
Jharkhand.
45. Amar Kumar, S/o Ramdeni Prasad, Aged about 36, by
Occupation Assistant Engineer Posted at PIU Dhanbad
6
2026:JHHC:26914
JSBCCL, Resident of S/o Ramdeni Prasad, Village Sundana,
P.O & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamu, Jharkhand.
46. Bikas Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Shreenath Tiwary, Aged
about 33 years, by Occupation Junior Engineer Posted at
Minor Irrigation Division, Gumla, Resident PPS. of S/o Late
Shreenath Tiwary, Mawtinagar Balbatra Road, Ara, Bhojpur,
Bihar. ... Interveners/Private Respondents
(Impleaded vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed in I.A.
No. 3616 of 2023) ..… Respondents
with
W.P. (S) No. 4903 of 2022
…..
1. Kanti Kumar, aged about 37 years, Son of Narayan Ram,
Resident of Village Bandi, P.O. Birni, P.S. Chandrapura &
District Bokaro.
2. Girendra Kumar Sharma, aged about 40 years, Son of
Balram Sharma, Resident of Village Manjhiaon, P.O., P.S.
Manjhiaon & District Garwha.
3. Biswash Kumar Singh, aged about 33 years, Son of Umit
Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Narsanda, P.O. Narsanda,
P.S. Chandi, District Nalanda (Bihar) & PIN - 803110.
… Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary,
having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 4th floor
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
3. The Under Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 4th floor
Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District Ranchi.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department,
Jharkhand, having its office at Ranchi College Road, Ranchi
University, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Morabadi & District
Ranchi.
5. The All India Council for Technical Education, through its
Chairman having its office at Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant
Kunj, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi.
6. The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical
Education, through its Chairman, having its office at Nelson
Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi.
..... Respondents
7. Raj Kumar Prasad, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
7
2026:JHHC:26914
posted as Junior Engineer, having its office at the Office of
Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District Latehar.
8. Mukund Kumar Ranjan, aged about not known to the
petitioner, Son of not known to the petitioner, currently
posted as Junior Engineer, Latehar, having its office at Office
of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department,
Road Division, Latehar, P.O., P.S. & District Latehar.
… Private Respondents
(Impleaded vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed in I.A.
No. 3766 of 2023)
9. Pankaj Kumar, S/o Kamdeo Prasad Mandal, aged about
35 years, by Occupation Assistant Engineer Posted at Road
Construction Department, Road Division Dhanbad, Resident
of S/o Kamdeo Prasad Mandal, House No. 150, Ward no. 10,
Gandhi Chowk, Rohini, P.O.+P.S Jasidih, Deoghar,
Jharkhand.
10. Amar Kumar, S/o Ramdeni Prasad, Aged about 36, by
Occupation Assistant Engineer Posted at PIU Dhanbad
J.SBCCL, Resident of S/o Ramdeni Prasad, Village
Sundana, P.O. & P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau,
Jharkhand.
11. Bikas Kumar Tiwar, S/o Late Shreenath Tiwary, Aged
about 33 years, by Occupation Junior Engineer Posted at
Minor Irrigation Division, Gumla, Resident PPS. S/o Late
Shreenath Tiwary, Mawtinagar Balutra Road, Ara, Bhojpur,
Bihar. … Interveners/Private Respondents
(Impleaded vide order dated
25.04.2023 passed in I.A. No. 3615 of 2023)
12. Praveen Kumar, aged about 40 years, S/O Bhim Prasad,
R/O Village- Dindayalpur, P.O- Dindayalpur, P.S- GB Nagar
Tarwara, District- Siwan, Bihar.
13. Prabhat Ranjan, aged about 36 years, S/O Dhananjay
Mahto, R/O Village- Rampur, P.O- Malini, P.S And District-
Godda.
14. Dharmendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, S/O
Suraj Nath Mahto, R/O ChokadMaganpur, Gola, P.O, P.S
And District- Ramgarh.
15. Ranjeet Kumar Sah, S/O Bishwanath Sah, R/O Dhamni
Bazar, Sub-District- Barhait, P.O- Dhamni Bazar, P.S-
Sundarpahadi, District- Godda.
16. Nilkanth Kumar, S/O Surajnath Mahto, R/O Chokad,
P.O- Maganpur, P.S- Gola, District- Ramgarh.
17. Pradeep Sah, S/O Garavu Sah, R/O Kendua, P.O-
Barmasiya, P.S- Pathargama, District- Godda.
8
2026:JHHC:26914
18. Md. Haris Hafeez, S/O Md. Aslam Ansari, R/O 51,
Friends Colony, Mohalla- Pugmil, Okani-02, P.O-
Hazaribagh, P.S- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh.
19. Sujit Kumar Giri, S/O Baidyanath Giri, R/O Village-
Baralota, P.O- GLA Collage, P.S- Medininagar, District-
Palamu.
20. Nawal Kishor, S/O Mahendra Prasad, R/O
Jagdawandih, P.O- Karwandiya, P.S- Sasaram, District-
Rohtas.
21. Amit Kumar, S/O Kumod Prasad Yadav, R/O House No-
43, Mohara, P.O- Dhouni, P.S- Saraiyahat, District- Dumka.
22. Apurwa Choudhary, D/o Late Vijay Kumar Choudhary,
resident of Sultan Lane, Kanta Toli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
R. No.-12 to 22 impleaded vide order dt. 28/4/26 passed
in WP(S) 3750/2022. …. Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No. 6478 of 2024
……
Sujeet Kumar Singh, aged about 45 years, Son of
Baidyanath Singh, Resident of Shiv Niketan, Shivajee Nagar,
Suraj Mandal Gali, P.O., P.S. & District - Godda.
…Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary,
having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
& P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2.The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 4th floor,
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
3.The Under Secretary, Road Construction Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at 4th floor,
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department,
Jharkhand, having its office at Ranchi College Road, Ranchi
University, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Morabadi & District
Ranchi.
5. The All-India Council for Technical Education, through its
chairman having its office at Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant
Kunj, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi.
6.The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical
Education, through its Chairman, having its office at Nelson
Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, P.O., P.S. & District New Delhi.
7.Raj Kumar Prasad, aged about not known to the petitioner,
Son of not known to the petitioner, currently posted as
9
2026:JHHC:26914
Junior Engineer, having its office at the Office of Executive
Engineer, Road Construction Department, Latehar, P.O.,
P.S. & District Latehar. .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
……
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Adv
Ms. Amrita Sinha, Adv
Mrs. Shweta Suman, Adv
Mr. Pragunee Kashyap, Adv
[W.P.(S) Nos. 3750 of 22&4903/22]
Mr. Chanchal Jain, Adv
For the Resp-State : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate General
For the Respondents: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Res. Nos.
15, 21,24 to 30, 31,
34 to 38 : M/s Atanu Banerjee, Suman Kr. Ghosh,
Advocates
[W.P.(S) No. 3750 of 2022]
For the Res. Nos.
8 to 14, 16 to 19, 22,
23, 26, 32, 39, 40 & 43.: M/s. Saurabh Shekhar,
Anurag Kumar, Advocates
[W.P.(S) No. 3750 of 2022]
For the Resp. nos. 12 to 22: M/s. Saurabh Shekhar,
Anurag Kumar, Advocates
[W.P.(S) No. 4903 of 2022]
For the Resp Nos. 9, 10, 11: M/s. H.K.Mehta,
Vidhan Kr. Singh, Advocates
[W.P.(S) No. 3750 of 2022]
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II
Mrs. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II
[W.P.(S) No. 3750 of 2022]
For the Resp.-Intervenor : M/s. Vandana Singh, Aliza, Advocates
For the Resp.-AICTE : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate
…..
C.A.V. ON: 02/07/2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 07/09/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. All these writ applications raise identical questions of law
and facts, as such, the same have been heard together and are
decided by this common judgment with consent of the learned
counsel appearing for the parties. The lead case is W.P.(S) No.
10
2026:JHHC:26914
3750 of 2022 and the facts of this case would be sufficient to
decide all these three writ petitions filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
Prayer made in the writ petition.
3. The Petitioners, holders of a certificate styled AMICE from
the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, seek a
mandamus to be treated as holders of "AMIE or Equivalent
Qualification" under Resolution No. 4377(S) dated 01.09.2009
and Resolution No. 933(S) dated 07.03.2022, and, by way of
the amended writ petition, further seek quashing of (i) Memo
No. 7391(S) dated 20.12.2010, (ii) Memo dated 02.09.2013, (iii)
Memo No. 2313(S) dated 03.05.2019, and (iv) Notification
dated 22.03.2023 granting promotion to the private
Respondents.
B. Case of the Petitioners
4. The petitioners were initially appointed as Diploma Holder
Junior Engineers. They were appointed, pursuant to the
selection process of the year 2007 and 2013.
5. The private Respondents are Junior Engineers (Civil) of the
Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand,
who hold AMIE or an equivalent qualification duly recognised
by the State. Some of the private respondents have already
been granted promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer,
while some of them are in the zone of consideration for
11
2026:JHHC:26914
promotion, against 10% AMIE Degree Quota of Assistant
Engineer.
6. It is contention of the petitioners that they have acquired
the degree in Civil Engineering /B.Tech. from the Institution of
Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, Punjab, either while being in
service or prior to entering the service.
7. The claim of the petitioners arises from the Government
Resolution dated 01.09.2009. The Resolution of 01.09.2009
gives the AMIE Degree Holders a special quota, for which 10%
seats have been carved out, in the promotional rank of
Assistant Engineer. However, it is pertinent to mention herein
that the Resolution does not speak of any other degree except
AMIE; rather uses the term “equivalent degrees” of AMIE will
be considered, to give the benefit of promotion in 10% quota to
the post of Assistant Engineer.
8. The petitioners have further placed reliance upon the
judgment dated 09.11.2016 passed by the Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 16304 of 2016 and further the subsequent policy
decision taken by the State of Bihar vide Memo No. 2260(S)
dated 09.03.2017 regarding equivalence of the Degree. The
petitioners have further placed reliance by the UPSC treating
the AMICE degree equivalent to AMIE.
9. The primary issue is that the degree that has been acquired
by the petitioners-Associate Member of the Institution of Civil
12
2026:JHHC:26914
Engineers, Ludhiana (AMICE), is equivalent to that of
Associate Member of the Institution of Engineers (AMIE) and
hence, they are entitled to get the benefits of promotion in 10%
quota of Assistant Engineer, as is available to the Junior
Engineers having degree of AMIE. The petitioners’ claim is that
the degree of AMICE should be considered equivalent to that
of the degree of AMIE. The entire edifice of the writ petition
rests on an assumed equivalence between AMICE (Ludhiana)
and AMIE.
C. Case of the State Government.
10. The State Government has filed their Counter Affidavit
and has taken a stand that by way of Departmental Order
dated 20.12.2010, Memo dated 02.09.2013 which was
reaffirmed by Memo No. 2313(S) dated 03.05.2019, confining
recognition to the degrees prescribed under the Jharkhand
Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016 and preceding
rules. The State Government has taken a consistent stand
expressly declining to recognize degree issued by the
Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (India) for appointment to the post of Assistant
Engineer, relying on AICTEs own policy decision. The AICTE in
its 52nd Emergent Council Meeting held on 03.08.2017 has
recognized the courses conducted by the professional bodies/
institutions in accordance with Ministry of Human Resource
13
2026:JHHC:26914
Development, Department of Higher Education, Government of
India Office Memorandum dated 06.12.2012 for equivalence
for all purposes including higher education and employment
which were duly recognized by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development with permanent recognition up to
31.05.2013. Based on the AICTEs decision dated 03.08.2017,
the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand
has issued an order as contained in Memo No. 2313(S) dated
03.05.2019 to recognize only those candidates who fulfils the
eligibility criteria and qualification in terms of Jharkhand
Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016.
D. Case of the Private Respondents.
11. The private respondents have submitted that there is
no document which establishes the equivalence of the degree
of AMICE to AMIE by the competent authority either by the
State Government or the Central Government and further has
relied upon the affidavit filed by the AICTE in W.P.(S) No. 6478
of 2024 to establish that the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Ludhiana was given recognition only for the academic sessions
2007-08 and was not granted any further extension. The
private respondents have brought on record the Government
Memo dated 06.11.2007 and 10.07.2012, in the affidavit dated
05.05.2026 which has been annexed as Annexure-I (Series) in
W.P.(S) No. 3750 of 2022. In the letter dated 06.11.2007 issued
14
2026:JHHC:26914
by the Government of India, the temporary recognition
approval for 2007-2008 academic session has been granted by
the Government of India, on the recommendation of committee
formed by AICTE and it has not been renewed in the Memo
dated 10.07.2012. Further the private respondents have
pointed out at paragraph 15 of the writ petition being W.P.(S)
No. 3750 of 2022 to show that all the petitioners have enrolled
in the Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana between
2008 to 2013.
12. The private respondents have further relied upon the
Jharkhand Engineering Service, Appointment and other
Service Conditions Rules, 2025, which was notified on
06.01.2026 and published in the Official Gazette on
22.01.2026. Schedule-II, Serial No.5 (ii) of the Rules of 2025
provides the eligibility criteria for promotion on the post of
Assistant Engineer. It provides that the during the service
tenure or prior to joining of the service the eligible candidates
should have obtained the Engineering Degree from the
recognized institution or AMIE degree. The private respondents
have relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Coal India Limited & Others. Versus Ananta Saha &
Others. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 which has held that the
law which is to be applied in a case is the law prevailing on the
15
2026:JHHC:26914
date of decision making and further in absence of challenge to
the Rules of 2025, the case of the petitioners have to be
considered as on the date of decision making and the law
prevailing as on today is the Rules of 2025 which clearly
provides the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer as during the service period or prior to
joining of the service, the Engineering Degree has to be
obtained from the recognized institutions or AMIE Degree.
E. Case of the All India Council for Technical Education
(AICTE)
13. The College, from which the petitioners have acquired
the Degree of AMICE bears recognition only for the academic
session 2007-2008. The affidavit filed by the AICTE, dated
05.03.2025, filed in W.P.(S) No. 6478 of 2024, wherein at
paragraph no. 13, the following has been stated:
“ That it is further stated that as per letter no. 7-11/2022-TC dated
03.03.2023 received from the Ministry of Education, Govt. of India,
Institution of Civil Engineers, Ludhiana was given recognition only for
the academic session 2007-2008 and not granted further
extension.”
the academic session 2007-2008 and not granted further
extension.”
14. The above stated averment has been supported by
Annexure-C therein, in which the letter dated 03.03.2023,
issued by the Govt. of India to the Member Secretary AICTE
has been annexed. It has been specifically stated in this letter
that “the averments made in some other writ application,
in relation to recognition of Institution of Civil Engineers
16
2026:JHHC:26914
(ICE), Ludhiana, Punjab are incorrect, rather it is correct
position of fact that this Institution has been granted
recognition only for the academic session 2007-2008 and
not thereafter."
F. Issue.
15. The short question which arises for consideration is
whether the degree/diploma (AMICE) obtained by the
Petitioners, who are Junior Engineers, from the Institution of
Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, is equivalent to the
degree/diploma (AMIE) obtained from the Institute of
Engineers (India), for the limited purpose of qualifying under
the 10% promotional quota to the post of Assistant Engineer
earmarked for "AMIE or Equivalent Qualification" holders
under Resolution No. 4377(S) dated 01.09.2009, as reiterated
by Resolution No. 933(S) dated 07.03.2022.
G. Analysis.
16. The State of Jharkhand has taken a consistent,
considered, and unbroken policy decision against recognition
of this qualification for promotional purposes. As early as vide
departmental order dated 20.12.2010, the State after
verification from the University Grants Commission, the
Distance Education Council, AICTE, and the State Science &
Technology Department excluded Junior Engineers holding
distance-mode B.Tech. degrees from three named institutions
17
2026:JHHC:26914
from the AMIE-equivalent seniority list. Thereafter, by Memo
dated 02.09.2013 addressed to the Jharkhand Public Service
Commission, the State expressly declined to recognise
certificates issued by the Institution of Civil Engineers and the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India) for appointment to
the post of Assistant Engineer, relying on AICTE's own stated
policy that it does not recognise Engineering/ Technology
qualifications acquired through distance-education mode at
all, save MBA and MCA. This position was reaffirmed by Memo
No. 2313(S) dated 03.05.2019, issued with reference to the
nd
decision of the AICTE Council in its 52 Emergent Meeting
held on 03.08.2017, confining recognition to degrees
prescribed under the Jharkhand Engineering Service
Recruitment Rules, 2016 and preceding Rules. These are
considered policy decisions well within the State's competence,
none of which has been shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or
contrary to any binding directive.
17. Recognition by UPSC, relied upon by the petitioners,
does not establish the equivalence claimed. The UPSC's
Engineering Services Examination notice prescribes the
eligibility criteria to be AMIE, not AMICE (Institution of Civil
Engineers, Ludhiana), as a recognised qualifying degree.
18. The combined reading of the Government of India
letters dated 06.11.2007, 10.07.2012 and 03.03.2023, clarifies
18
2026:JHHC:26914
the position as crystal clear that the recognition of the
petitioners’ college was only for academic sessions 2007-2008
and not any further.
19. Admittedly, all the petitioners have enrolled in the
Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana between 2008
to 2013 as is evident from the paragraph-15 of the writ petition
being W.P.(S) No. 3750 of 2022. The AICTE has taken a stand
in their affidavit that the recognition of the petitioners’ college
was only valid for the academic sessions 2007-2008. It was not
recognized thereafter, and the question of equivalence does not
arise once the degree was not recognized. The determination of
equivalence is relevant only where qualification is recognized.
Even otherwise, the Courts, cannot see the equivalence of the
degree.
20. The law regarding equivalence of a degree is no more
res-integra . The determination of whether one qualification is
equivalent to another is the exclusive domain of the recruiting
authority, the State, or specialized academic expert bodies. The
Courts cannot invoke the power of judicial review to expand
prescribed qualifications, apply their own evaluation criteria,
or declare a degree equivalent to another. Equivalence is highly
technical academic matter. It cannot be assumed simply
because two courses have similar syllabi. Any declaration of
equivalence must be issued as specific, formal order or
19
2026:JHHC:26914
resolution by an authorized academic body and must be duly
published.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Unnikrishnan C.V. & Others versus Union of India &
Others vide judgment dated 28.03.2023 reported in (2023) 18
SCC 546 has held at paragraphs-12 to 6:-
“12. In this background, the qualification as prescribed in column No. 11
of GREF Rules, 1982 when perused, would indicate that candidate who is
seeking promotion to the post of Superintendent BR Grade-I has to possess
"Diploma in Civil Engineering" with 5 years regular service in the grade of
General Reserve Engineering Force. Whereas appellants are possessing
Diploma in Draughtsman Estimating and Design (DED), which fact is not
seriously disputed by them. Mr. Tapas Das, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants has fairly conceded before this Court that an erroneous
proposition was put forth before the High Court, namely, it was contended
that Diploma is equivalent to a Degree and as such negating said
contention, the High Court though justified its conclusion had erred in
ignoring the consistent stand that had been taken by the Appellants,
namely, Diploma in DED possessed by them is that of 2 years course and
though column 11 prescribes Diploma in Civil Engineering for being
promoted as Superintendent BR-Grade-I is to be treated as equivalent and
this aspect was required to be considered by the High Court is an
argument which looks attractive at first blush. However, on a careful
perusal of the extant Rules as applicable for promotion to the post of
Superintendent BR Grade-II, said contention has to be necessarily rejected
for reasons more than one. Firstly, before the High Court appellants
attempted to justify their claim contending "Diploma" is equivalent to a
"Degree" and as such being entitled for promotion which has been
negatived by the High Court and rightly so. Secondly, appellants tried to
justify their claim contending rule as applicable for direct recruitment
would be applicable for recruitment by promotion, which has not been
accepted by the High Court. In so far as the contention regarding
qualification for promotion, the rule itself is explicit and clear, namely, it
prescribes for promotion to Superintendent BR Grade-I only, those
candidates possessing Diploma in Civil Engineering with 5 years regular
service in the grade in General Reserve Engineering Force would be
eligible. No doubt, said rule is silent with regard to Diploma in Civil
Engineering being either 3 years or otherwise. It is an undisputed fact that
appellants possess 'Diploma in DED' and not 'Diploma in Civil Engineering'.
It is trite law that courts would not prescribe the qualification and/or
declare the equivalency of a course. Until and unless rule itself prescribes
the equivalency namely, different courses being treated alike, the courts
would not supplement its views or substitute its views to that of expert
bodies.
13. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal & Anr., this
Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It
cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the
university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or
resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance
education course was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the
appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been
produced before it to show that the distance education course had been
recognized as such.
14. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors², it
was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe
qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration
20
2026:JHHC:26914
the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties,
functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the
acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither
expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the
equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given
qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as
recruiting authority, to determine.
(Emphasis supplied)
15. The diploma courses offered by College of Military Engineering, Pune,
(CME) has been recognized as a course for recruitment to the post under
the Central Government vide notification dated 01.02.2001, issued by
Ministry of Human Resource Development (Annexure P-8). Said notification
does not indicate diploma courses specified therein which are recognized
by the Government of India are to be treated as equivalent. No material
has been placed on record by the appellants to demonstrate that Diploma
in DED is equivalent to Diploma in Civil Engineering.
16. The presumption on which the Writ Petition seems to have been
presented is on the premise that appellants have been denied promotion
on the ground that they possess a two year diploma not three year
diploma, by completely ignoring the fact that denial of promotion is on the
ground that candidates do not possess the prescribed requisite
qualification namely "Diploma in Civil Engineering" and "Diploma in DED"
possessed by them is not as prescribed under the Rules. It is no doubt true
that eligibility for promotional post namely Superintendent BR Grade-I is
not conditioned by any year wise stipulations vis-a-vis the diploma course.
In that view of the matter, prayer of the appellants cannot be granted for
the reasons indicated hereinabove and we do not find any fallacy in the
reasons assigned by the High Court.”
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devender
Bhaskar & Others versus State of Haryana & Others,
reported in (2024) 19 SCC 506 has held at paragraphs-20 to
26:-
“20. We have already noticed that one of the eligibility criteria for
appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts Teacher as per the
advertisement dated 20-7-2006 is a "two-year diploma in Art and Craft
examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or
an equivalent qualification recognised by the Haryana Education
Department". It was made clear by the Industrial Training and Vocational
Educational Department, Haryana, that diploma in Art and Craft Course
by Kurukshetra University is conducted through distance education and
that this course cannot be equated with two-year diploma in Art and Craft
Course awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department.
Recognition of the said Course by the State of Haryana, as held by the
High Court, is entirely different from its equivalence. When the experts in
the Education Department have held the diploma in Art and Craft by
Kurukshetra University is not equivalent to the two-year diploma in Art
and Craft awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department, we
are of the view that the High Court was not justified in equalising them.
21. In Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India, it was held that the question
regarding equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question
based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic
standards and practical attainments of such qualifications. It was further
held that where the decision of the Government is based on the
recommendation of an expert body, then the Court, uninformed of relevant
data and unaided by technical insights necessary for the purpose of
determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the
Government unless it is based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations
or actuated mala fides or is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong.
21
2026:JHHC:26914
22. In J. Ranga Swamy v. State of A.P. this Court held that it is not for the
court to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts.
23. In State of Rajasthan v. Lata Arun this Court held that the prescribed
eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or
promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate
authority. It was held thus: (SCC p. 258, para 13)
"13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that
the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a
course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters
to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for
courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification
should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the
qualification prescribed by the authority."
24. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwal this Court has
reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be
implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university
relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly
published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance education course
was equivalent to the degree of MA (English) of the appellant university
therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to
show that the distance education course had been recognised as such.
25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad, it was held that the State,
as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of
eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude
required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various
qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various
qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the
prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed
qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of
qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine.
26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the High Court has erred in
holding that the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by Kurukshetra
University is equivalent to two-year diploma in Art and Craft examination
conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or diploma in
Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial Training and Vocational
Education, Haryana.”
23. In the present case there is no document that
establishes equivalence. There is no notification, order, or
communication of any competent authority, Central or State
declaring, in terms, that the AMICE qualification from the
Institution of Civil Engineers (India), Ludhiana, is equivalent
to AMIE from the Institute of Engineers (India).
24. The Petitioners place substantial reliance on the Patna
High Court's judgment dated 09.11.2016 in CWJC No. 16304
of 2016 which does not support the equivalence claimed. That
judgment, at paragraphs 5 and 6, expressly records that the
Court would "not venture to declare or to make a proclamation"
22
2026:JHHC:26914
that the Ludhiana diploma/degree should be treated as
equivalent to that of the Institute of Engineers (India), and
merely directed the State of Bihar to take its own decision on
the question within a stipulated period.
25. A judgment that expressly declines to decide the very
question in issue cannot be cited as authority for the
proposition that equivalence has been judicially recognised.
26. The subsequent policy of the State of Bihar is neither
binding nor relevant to the State of Jharkhand. The decision
taken by the State of Bihar vide Memo No. 2260(s) dated
09.03.2017 was an exercise of that State's own executive
policy-making power in relation to its own cadre and Rules.
Policy decisions of one State on a question of educational
equivalence for its own services do not bind a different State.
27. Further, the Rules of 2025 specifically provides the
eligibility criteria for promotion to the Assistant Engineer as
during the service period the Engineering Degree has to be
obtained from the recognized institutions or AMIE Degree. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ananta Saha (supra) ,
has held at paragraph-18:-
“18This Court in State of T.N. v. Hind Stone 11, V. Karnal
Durai v. District Collector 12, Union of India v. Indian
Charge Chrome 13 and Howrah Municipal Corpn. v.
Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.14 has clearly held that the law which
is to be applied in a case is the law prevailing on the date
of decision making.”
23
2026:JHHC:26914
28. In absence of no challenge to the Rules of 2025, by the
petitioners, the law which has to be applied in the present case
is the law prevailing on the date of decision making. The case
of the petitioners has to be considered as on today is in terms
of the Rules of 2025, which clearly provides that for promotion
on the post of Assistant Engineer, the candidates have to
obtain the Engineering Degree from the recognized institutions
during the service tenure or AMIE Degree.
29. The petitioners have no absolute, indefeasible vested
rights to be considered for promotion against the 10% quota
for AMIE Degree holders. However, the Petitioners are not
rendered remediless. Resolution dated 01.09.2009 preserves a
28% general quota for promotion of other Junior Engineers,
independent of the AMIE/equivalent-qualification quota. The
respective Petitioners remain eligible to be considered
thereunder, and it is a matter of record that the original
Petitioner No. 11 in W.P.(S) No. 3750 of 2022 (since deleted
from the array of parties) has in fact already been promoted to
Assistant Engineer under that very 28% quota. The premise
that the Petitioners face exclusion from every available channel
of promotion is accordingly without foundation.
30. In view of the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Unnikrishnan
(supra), Devender Bhaskar (supra) and Ananta Saha
24
2026:JHHC:26914
(supra), the impugned order needs no interference and further
the petitioners have failed to establish by any document or
authority, that AMICE qualification is equivalent to AMIE for
the purpose of the 10% promotional quota under Resolution
dated 01.09.2009.
31. This Court by an order dated 05.05.2026 has granted
interim order in favour of the petitioners and due to the
operation of the interim order, the Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) meeting could not be convened.
Furthermore, the Government has issued a Circular dated
06.07.2026 stipulating that the DPC shall be held only once in
a year, during the month of July. Consequently, in the year
2026, several employees whose vigilance reports were duly
prepared could not have their cases considered for promotion.
32. Accordingly, the State Government is directed to
convene the DPC within Six weeks from today and to grant
promotion to all eligible candidates. Consequently, the interim
order dated 05.05.2026 is hereby vacated.
33. Accordingly, all these writ applications being devoid of
any merit, are hereby, dismissed. Pending I.A.(s), if any, also
stands closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:07/09/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded on
8.9.2026
25