2025:JHHC:28106 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 7490 of 2012 ------- Subodh Kumar Singh, son of late Ramdayal Singh, resident of Old Purulia Road, Munda Colony, Mango PLO & P.S. Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Health Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. Director-in-Chief, Health, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Department, Singhbhum, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, AC to GP-III ---- 09/ 15.09.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure-7), whereby the 3rd respondent has held the appointment of petitioner in the post of Block Extension Educator as illegal and directed him to be posted at lower post of Family Planning Worker. 2. Briefly stated, father of the petitioner was sole earning member of his family and after his death while in service, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground vide Annexure-1 on temporary basis. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was confirmed and his pay-scale was fixed by the competent authority which was duly vetted by the District Accounts Officer. Pursuant thereto, on the basis of directives of the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand vide letter No. 660 dated 28.02.2009, benefit of revision of pay was also extended to the petitioner and the petitioner’s salary was fixed as per the 6th Pay Revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 (Annexure-3). 2025:JHHC:28106 2 3. However, all of a sudden, the 4th respondent vide letter dated 17.05.2012, stopped the disbursement of salary of the petitioner on the ground that during verification it was found that certain irregularities have been found with respect to appointment of the petitioner. 4. At this stage itself, it is pertinent to indicate that the petitioner was appointed vide appointment letter dated 02.03.2005 and his service was confirmed on 29.01.2010 and after his confirmation, he was also getting the benefit of 6th PRC. After that the concerned respondent came to the conclusion that the procedure adopted in appointment of petitioner was irregular. However, there is no averment in the entire counter-affidavit as to whether the person who was responsible for irregular procedure of the appointment has been proceeded against or not. 5. It is also pertinent to indicate at this stage itself that merely by issuing show-cause notice; the salary of the petitioner was stopped without following principle of natural justice and adhering to the settled proposition of law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court towards para-11 wherein the names of four persons are indicated who were also appointed on the same post of Block Extension Educator by the Civil Surgeon and they have not been disturbed, as per the knowledge of the petitioner. 7. The categorical statements of paras-11 and 12 has been replied in a very cursory manner, in para-18 of the counter-affidavit dated 05.02.2013, by stating that “…………… it is most humbly and respectfully stated and submitted that the same is already replied herein above. That the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer is not competent to appoint the Block Extension Educator i.e. State Cadre Post and more so it is 100% filled-up by way of promotion from Family Planning Worker and therefore, the petitioner was reverted on the post of Family Planning Worker”. 8. Thus, though there was a specific averment mentioning the names of four employees who were also appointed in the post of 2025:JHHC:28106 3 Block Extension Educator but the same has not been replied by the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the counter- affidavit tries to justify the impugned order and submits that though the Civil Surgeon is empowered to appoint Class-III employees but not any Class-III employee which is by way of promotion. Thus, it is an admitted position that the Civil Surgeon was competent to appoint Class-III Post, the only grievance of the respondent-State is that the post on which the petitioner was appointed is a promotional post. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per rule, the appointment on the post of Block Extension Educator is to be done by the Director, Health Service and not by the Civil Surgeon. 11. However, it is made clear that the same has not been mentioned in the impugned order; rather the impugned order has been passed solely on the basis of opinion given by the then Advocate General. 12. It transpires from perusal of the impugned order that the same is issued by the 4th respondent only on the basis of legal opinion obtained by him from the then Advocate General. Law in this regard is very clear that a person who is taking a decision has to apply its own mind. However, the order impugned clearly goes to indicate that the signing authority first quoted the opinion of the Advocate General and directly came to the finding that: “1. श्री सुबोध कु मार ससिंह की सससिल सर्जन, पू० ससिंहभूम के पत्ािंक-210, र्० सिनािंक (2.03.05 द्वारा सीधे प्रखण्ड प्रसार प्रसिक्षक के पि पर की गई सनयुक्ति सनयमानुकू ल नहीिं है क्ोिंसक यह पि राज्य स्तरीय होने के साथ साथ प्रोन्नसि का पि है और सससिल सर्जन इस पि पर सनयुक्तति करने हेिु समक्ष पिासधकारी नहीिं है। सर्ला अनुकम्पा ससमसि द्वारा भी श्री ससिंह की िृिीय श्रेणी के पि पर सनयुक्ति की अनुििंसा की गई थी, पि का नाम specify नहीिं सकया गया था।“ 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and averments made in the respective affidavits, the impugned order requires interference on the following grounds: 2025:JHHC:28106 4 i) On the issue of principle of natural justice, the petitioner was not given any hearing. ii) The impugned order has been passed without application of mind and solely on the basis of opinion of the then Advocate General which is unheard in service jurisprudence. iii) There is no allegation against upon petitioner to make fraud or anything. On the contrary it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed on Class-III post and also the post of Block Extension Educator is of a Class-III post. The only grievance is that it is the post by way of promotion. 14. It goes without saying that the petitioner was appointed in the year March, 2005; his service was confirmed in the year January, 2010; and his pay-scale was fixed on 15.05.2009; his service book indicates the pay-revision was also made in the year 2010. So even if the petitioner ought to have joined in Class-IV post; then also by efflux of time, at the time of filing of the present writ application, even otherwise, he would have been promoted to the post of Block Extension Educator. 15. As stated herein above, on the one hand the impugned order has been passed without following the principle of natural justice and on the other hand, it is not the case that the petitioner is working in some higher post; rather, it is an admitted case that the petitioner was appointed in Class-III post of Block Extension Educator and the only stand of the respondent based on the opinion of the then Advocate General that post of Block Extension Educator is a promotional post. 16. As already stated, that even till now, petitioner could have been promoted. 17. The contention of the respondents that at best on the ground of principle of natural justice, the matter could have been remitted for taking a fresh decision but at the cost of repetition, as already held herein above, admittedly, petitioner was appointed on Class-III post and now, even if he would have been posted in lower post, till the date 2025:JHHC:28106 5 of filing of the writ application or at least till today he would have been promoted to the post Block Extension Educator. As such, the said ground is also not consistent. 18. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.11.2012 (Annexure- 7), is hereby, quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits, which shall be extended to him within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 15th September, 2025 Kunal