PRAVEEN KUMAR vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:15356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5645 of 2025
….…..
1. Praveen Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Bhim Prasad,
resident of Village-Dindayalpur, P.O. Dindayalpur, P.S. G.B. Nagar
(Tarawara) District-Siwan (Bihar).
2. Pradeep Sah, aged about 40 years, son of Garavu Sah,
resident of village-Kendua, P.O. Barmasiya, P.S. Pathargama,
District-Godda (Jharkhand).
3. Dharmendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, son of Suraj
Nath Mahto, resident of village Chokad, P.O. Maganpur, P.S. Gola,
District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand). …. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
2. The Secretary Department of Personnel Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at
Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
3. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC),
Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S.-
Lalpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
5. Sri Alok Kumar, being Sl. No. 886 in the gradation list, son of
not known to the petitioners, presently serving on the post of
Assistant Engineer, Chief Engineer Office, Building Construction
Department, Line Tank Road, Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali,
District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
6. Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, being Sl. No. 887 in the
gradation list, son of not known to the petitioners, presently serving
on the post of Assistant Engineer, Urban Development, Project
Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
(Jharkhand).
7. Sri Sanjay Prasad, being Sl.No. 888 in the gradation list, son
of not known to the petitioners, presently serving on the post of
Assistant Engineer (Anusharwan), Chief Engineers Office,
(Communication), Golchakkar, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).
..... Respondent(s)
….…..


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the Resp.-State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S.C.-I
Mr. Mihir Kumar Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-I
For the Resp.-JPSC: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sharan Toppo, Advocate
….…..

2026:JHHC:15356
C.A.V. ON: 28/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been preferred by the
petitioners praying, inter alia, for issuance of direction upon
the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners from the
post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer with
all consequential benefits, notionally w.e.f. 22.03.2023, in the
same manner as similarly situated employees were granted
promotion pursuant to Notification dated 01.08.2025.
3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings, are that
the petitioners were appointed on the post of Junior Engineer
under the Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand
and are presently working as such.
4. The case of the petitioners is that they were also parties
in an earlier writ being W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 20 23, which was
disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2024
directing the respondents to reconsider the promotional
exercise from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant
Engineer in the light of the principles laid down therein.
Pursuant thereto, several similarly situated employees were
granted promotion vide Notification dated 01.08.2025 with
notional effect from 22.03.2023; however, the case of the
present petitioners was not considered, though according to
them they stand on identical footing. Aggrieved thereof, the

2026:JHHC:15356
present writ application has been preferred.
5. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners
that pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S)
No. 2810 of 2023 , the respondents undertook a fresh exercise
for adjustment and promotion of Junior Engineers possessing
AMIE qualification by shifting certain candidates from the
AMIE quota to the Diploma quota and by creating shadow
posts for accommodating excess candidates. He has also
submitted that though the said exercise was extended to other
similarly situated employees, who were also parties in the
earlier writ petition, the petitioners alone have been excluded
from the benefit of such consideration.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents
have practiced pick and choose in shifting only 11 persons
from AMIE quota to Diploma quota; whereas there were 43
candidates who were promoted to Assistant Engineer through
AMIE quota-unreserved. He has also submitted that as far as
the non-availability of vacancy in the Diploma Category is
concerned; they have already created more than 10 shadow
posts, then the same process could have been applied for
shifting seniority position no. 886, 887 and 888 of the AMIE
quota to Diploma quota. In that eventuality, 3 additional
vacancies would be unfilled in the AMIE Quota of the
Assistant Engineer, against which the petitioners can be

2026:JHHC:15356
promoted in the same manner as other employees of W.P.(S)
No. 2810 of 2023 have been promoted.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents have stated
that as per the judgment dated 19.12.2024 passed by this
Court, against the available vacancy, firstly 28% Diploma
quota and then 10% AMIE/equivalent quota were to be
considered for promotion. Thus, the direction was complied,
and on complying the judgment dated 19.12.2024 a total of 15
(UR-11, ST-04) engineers of AMIE quota was to be shifted to
Diploma quota. Accordingly, promotion was considered on 11
posts in UR category of the Diploma quota against the total 15
vacancies arising in AMIE quota; whereas against the
remaining 04 posts of ST category, due to non-availability of
engineers of relevant category in AMIE quota, as per the
provision mentioned in Clause- ख of departmental resolution
no. 4377 dated 01.09.2009, engineers of relevant category of
Diploma quota were considered for promotion.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds
that it is not in dispute that the present petitioners were also
parties in W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023 , which was disposed of vide
judgment dated 19.12.2024 directing the respondents to
reconsider the promotional exercise in the manner indicated
therein. It further appears that while disposing of the said writ

2026:JHHC:15356
petition, this Court had specifically observed that the seats in
the Diploma/open category quota were vacant and therefore
no prejudice would be caused if the eligible petitioners therein
were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineer.
9. From the records, it further transpires that in the original
promotional exercise undertaken vide Notification dated
22.03.2023, promotions were granted from the post of Junior
Engineer to Assistant Engineer under different promotional
channels, wherein 43 candidates were promoted under the
10% AMIE quota in the unreserved category, whereas
promotions under the 28% Diploma/open category quota were
also made on the basis of inter se seniority.
10. The main grievance raised in W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023
was that certain Junior Engineers possessing AMIE
qualification, though otherwise eligible for consideration in the
28% Diploma/open category quota on the basis of their
seniority, were adjusted against the 10% AMIE quota, thereby
reducing the available vacancies for other eligible AMIE degree
holder candidates.
11. This Court, while deciding the earlier writ petition, held
that candidates possessing AMIE qualification were first
required to be considered against the 28% open category quota
and only thereafter against the 10% AMIE quota.

2026:JHHC:15356
12. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondents
admittedly undertook a fresh restructuring exercise. From the
statements made in the counter affidavit as also from
Annexure-10 to the writ petition, it clearly appears that in
compliance of the judgment dated 19.12.2024, a total of 15
engineers of AMIE quota, viz., 11 from UR category and 04
from ST category, were proposed to be shifted to the
Diploma/open category quota. As a consequence, thereof, 15
vacancies were to arise in the AMIE quota, out of which 11
vacancies in the UR category were utilized for promotion of
other eligible Junior Engineers possessing AMIE qualification.
13. It further appears from the records that while
implementing the aforesaid exercise, the respondents
themselves realized that upon shifting of 11 AMIE candidates
to the Diploma quota, 11 Assistant Engineers promoted under
the Diploma quota would become excess. The records further
reveal that such excess Assistant Engineers comprised UR-5,
ST-3 and SC-3 category candidates. It also appears from
Annexure-10 that despite such situation, the respondents
consciously decided to protect and continue the promotions of
those excess Assistant Engineers by creation of shadow posts
in the concerned categories, inasmuch as, it has been directed
in the previous writ that the further promotional exercise shall
not prejudice the already promoted candidates.

2026:JHHC:15356
14. The aforesaid facts assume significance for the reason
that the main contention now taken by the respondents is that
no vacancy remained available for consideration of the present
petitioners either in the Diploma quota or in the AMIE quota
as there was only 34 posts vacant out of a total of 123 posts in
the UR category of Diploma quota, and for the rest categories,
ST and SC, there were zero posts.
15. The respondents in paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit
have themselves disclosed that under the Diploma quota in
UR category, the last promoted candidate was bearing
seniority no.879; whereas respondent nos.5, 6 and 7, having
seniority nos.886, 887 and 888 respectively, continued to
remain adjusted under the AMIE quota on the ground that no
vacancy remained available under the UR category under
Diploma quota.
16. However, from the materials available on record, it is
evident that while implementing the earlier judgment, the
respondents had already gone beyond the actual vacancy
position by adopting the mechanism of adjustment through
creation of shadow posts to be considered as supernumerary
posts till the service of those shifted candidates.
17. Once such mechanism had already been adopted by the
respondents for accommodating similarly situated employees
arising out of the same promotional process; there appears no

2026:JHHC:15356
reasonable basis for denying similar consideration in the case
of the present petitioners.
18. In such circumstances, exclusion of the present
petitioners from the benefit of similar consideration, despite
their participation in the earlier round of litigation and despite
application of the same methodology for others, cannot be
sustained.
19. It is well settled that similarly situated employees are
required to be treated alike and the State authorities are
expected to maintain uniformity and fairness in matters
relating to promotion.
20. In this context, it would be profitable to refer the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of
1
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , wherein the scope of Article
14 and class legislation has been discussed, and the relevant
para are quoted hereinbelow:
“10. The scope, content and meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution has
been the subject-matter of intensive examination by this Court in a catena
of decisions. It would, therefore, be merely adding to the length of this
judgment to recapitulate all those decisions and it is better to avoid that
exercise save and except referring to the latest decision on the subject in
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 :
(1978) 2 SCR 621] from which the following observation may be extracted:
(SCC pp. 283-84, para 7 )
“[W]hat is the content and reach of the great equalising
principle enunciated in this article? There can be no doubt that it is
a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which
rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And,
therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or
lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made to truncate its
all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate
its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many
aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within
traditional and doctrinaire limits.... Article 14 strikes at
arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of
treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well

1
(1983) 1 SCC 305

2026:JHHC:15356
as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non
arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence....”
11. The decisions clearly lay down that though Article 14 forbids class
legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of
legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification,
two conditions must be fulfilled viz. (i) that the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things
that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group; and (ii)
that that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to
be achieved by the statute in question (see Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice
S.R. Tendolkar [AIR 1958 SC 538 : 1959 SCR 279, 296 : 1959 SCJ 147] ).
The classification may be founded on differential basis according to objects
sought to be achieved but what is implicit in it is that there ought to be a
nexus i.e. causal connection between the basis of classification and object
of the statute under consideration. It is equally well settled by the
decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by
a substantive law but also by a law of procedure. ”
21. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tej
2
Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court , while dealing
with principles of fairness and legitimate expectation in
administrative action, has observed as follows:
“24. The principle of fairness in action requires that public authorities be
held accountable for their representations. Good administration requires
public authorities to act in a predictable manner and honour the promises
made or practices established unless there is good reason not to do so.
25. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate
expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non-arbitrary. The
basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the
principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with
individuals. It recognises that a public authority's promise or past conduct
will give rise to a legitimate expectation. This doctrine is premised on the
notion that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to
honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation
can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure.
26. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede or
hinder the power of the public authorities to lay down a policy or withdraw
it. The public authority has the discretion to exercise the full range of
choices available within its executive power. The public authority often has
to take into consideration diverse factors, concerns, and interests before
arriving at a particular policy decision. The courts are generally cautious in
interfering with a bona fide decision of public authorities which denies
legitimate expectation provided such a decision is taken in the larger public
interest. Thus, public interest serves as a limitation on the application of
the doctrine of legitimate expectation. ”

22. As far as the contention of the respondents in view of
applicability of departmental Resolution No.4377 dated
01.09.2009 is concerned; due to which 04 candidates of ST
category, out of those 15 proposed candidates to be shifted,

2
(2025) 2 SCC 1

2026:JHHC:15356
have been retained in the AMIE quota itself due to non-
availability of engineers of relevant category in the AMIE
quota; this Court finds that when a specific direction was
already passed in the earlier round of litigation being W.P.(S)
No. 2810 of 2023 that while undertaking the promotional
exercise, the candidates possessing AMIE qualification were
first required to be considered against the 28% Diploma/open
category quota and only thereafter against the 10% AMIE
quota, and as such, if the candidates who were promoted in
the Diploma quota goes up-till seniority position 894, then the
list should also include the promotions, in the same category,
of senior persons.
This has been totally missed out, that the candidates
bearing seniority position 886, 887 & 888 have not been
promoted in the Diploma quota, though they are seniors to the
seniority position no. 894 in the Diploma quota. Since in the
Diploma quota promotions are made on the basis of seniority,
then if seniority position no. 894 gets a place in the Diploma
quota by creation of shadow post, then clearly the seniors
should also be adjusted in the same list, being seniority
position no. 886, 887 & 888.
23. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the case of the present petitioners also deserves
reconsideration in the same manner in which similarly

2026:JHHC:15356
situated employees pursuant to W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023 were
considered and granted promotion vide Notification dated
01.08.2025.

24. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and
discussions, the respondents are directed to shift the seniority
position no. 886, 887 & 888 from AMIE quota to Diploma
quota, the seats of AMIE quota, thereafter, which are unfilled,
shall be taken to consider the case of the petitioners and if
they are otherwise eligible and qualify the selection process,
the promotion should be granted to them.

25. The entire exercise should be conducted in the same
manner as has been done for the other candidates of W.P.(S)
No. 2810 of 2023 , as it has been noted that they have been
granted promotion, vide notification dated 01.08.2025,
applicable w.e.f. 22.03.2023.
26. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of
16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
27. Hence, the instant writ application stands allowed.
Pending IAs, if any, are closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:15/05/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R

Uploaded on
27.5.2026