2025:JHHC:34739 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S). No.4302 of 2015 1.Ajit Nirmal Tirkey son of Andrias Tirkey, presently posting as Assistant Electrical Engineer, Technical, Chas Electrical Supply Area, Chas, P.O. and P.S-Chas, District Bokaro. 2.Satya Narayan Patar son of Bishnu Patar, presently posting as Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electrical Supply Sub-Division, Pakur, P.O. and P.S-Pakur, District Pakur. 3.Gaurav Kumar son of Brij Kumar, presently posting as Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electrical Supply Sub-Division, Kanke, P.O. and P.S-Kanke, District Ranchi. 4.Brajesh Kumar Birua son of Late Kolay Birua, presently posting as Assistant Electrical Engineer, DPT-2, Electrical Supply Area, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribag 5.Pramod Kumar Gupta son of Sri Kanhai Sahu, presently posting as Assistant Electrical Engineer, System Operation and Estimate, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, District Ranchi. ....…… Petitioners Versus 1.The Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited through its Chief Managing Director, Nigam Headquarter- Engineering Headquarter, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2.The Managing Director, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Nigam Headquarter- Engineering Headquarter, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3.The General Manager (P & GA), Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Nigam Headquarter- Engineering Headquarter, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4.The Deputy General Manager (HR), Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited, Nigam Headquarter- Engineering Headquarter, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 5.Lal Bihari Ranjan son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (General Cadre), Electrical Executive Engineer (Revenue), Nigam Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6.Prem Prakash Minz, son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (General Cadre), Electrical Executive Engineer (Commerce & Revenue), Electric Supply Circle, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma. 7.Sartaj Quraisi, son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (General Cadre), Electric Supply Division, Ghatshila, P.O. and P.S. Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum. 2025:JHHC:34739 2 8.Amit Kumar son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (General Cadre), M.R.T. Division, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 9.Abhishek Kumar Son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (APDRP), Nigam Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 10.Rajesh Rajwar son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (General Cadre), Electric Supply Range, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. 11.Rajesh Kumar Mandal son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Commerce & Revenue), Electric Supply Circle, Chaibasa, P.O. and P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. 12.Pankaj Kumar Goutam son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (General Cadre), Electric Supply Division, Adityapur, P.O. and P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikella-Kharsawan. 13.Ranjit Kumar son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Revenue), Nigam Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 14.Rajeev Ranjan son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Electric Audit), Nigam Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 15. Sakla Hembram son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Rural Electrification), Nigam Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 16.Pradip Kumar Vishwakarm son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Commerce and Revenue), Electric Supply Circle, Dhanbad, P.O and P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad. 17.Sanjay Besra son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Commerce and Revenue), Electric Supply Circle, Chas, P.O and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro. 18.Sunil Kumar Tudu son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, MRT Division, Chas, P.O and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro. 19.Vishal Chandra Toppo son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Sahibganj, P.O and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj. 20.Anup Kumar Bihari son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Jamtara, P.O and P.S. Jamtara, District Jamtara. 2025:JHHC:34739 3 21.Suna Ram Soren son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Jharia, P.O and P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. 22.Anurag Bodra son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, (W & MM), Electric Supply Range, Medninagar, P.O and P.S. Medninagar, District Palamau. 23.Rajkumar son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Rural Electrification), Nigam Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 24.Sushil Bhagat son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, MRT Division, Daltonganj, P.O and P.S. Daltonganj, District Palamau. 25.Anup Prasad son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Rural Electrification), Nigam Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 26.Panchanan Singh son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (APDRP), Nigam Headquarter, Dhurwa, P.O and P.S Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 27.James Kujur son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Commerce and Revenue), Electric Supply Circle, Giridih, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. 28.Sita Ram Mardi, son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Central Store, Koderma, P.O. and P.S. Koderma, District Koderma. 29.Navin Kachhap son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, MRT Division, Sahibganj, P.O and P.S. Sahibganj, District Sahibganj. 30.Rajesh Linda son of not known to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer, MRT Division, Gumla, P.O and P.S. Gumla, District Gumla. 31.Anita Samanta, wife of not known to the to the petitioner, present posted as Electrical Executive Engineer (Technical), Electric Supply Circle, Doranda, P.O and P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. …….. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. P.A.S Pati, Advocate : Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate For the Resp-JUVNL : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.No.24 & 26 : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate For the Resp. No.5 to 23, 25 & 27 to 31 : None ----------- 2025:JHHC:34739 4 CAV Judgment Delivered on 18/11/2025 This amended writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, after allowing of I.A. No.4909 of 2020 vide order dated 16.10.2020 by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon9ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan) of this Court, for filing this amended writ petition, for the following reliefs:- <(1) That by the instant writ application, the petitioners, above named, pray for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) for quashing of notification dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure-5), issued under the signature of respondent no.4, whereby and whereunder several junior to the petitioners have been granted promotion from Assistant Electrical Engineer to Electrical Executive Engineer and the petitioners further pray for grant promotion to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer from the date when the junior have been granted promotion i.e. 03.07.2015, while by considering the case of the petitioners, on the basis of merit list as well as the gradation list dated 21.05.2015 (Annexure-4) And For issuance of an appropriate Writ (s)/Order (s)/Direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondents for declaring the Office Order No.1194 dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of the Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Personnel Department) not applicable over the Petitioners as after clearing the written test & the interview did not receive appointment letters and pursuant to Orders of this Hon’ble Court the Petitioners were given joining on 01.08.2011, since the same was not under their control (Amended prayer vide I.A. No.4909/2020) And for other ancillary reliefs. 2. Heard Mr. P.A.S Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Respondent-JUVNL and Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.24 and 26. 2025:JHHC:34739 5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Assistant Electrical Engineers and they had given their joining on 01.08.2011 and they are at present working as Assistant Electrical Engineers to the satisfaction of their superior officials without any complaint. It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier represented before the Respondent No.3 on 20.04.2015 with respect to maintain seniority as per the merit list in issuance of seniority list and the Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (in short to be referred as 8JBVNL9) had issued tentative Gradation List for determining inter-se seniority of Assistant Electrical Engineers vide Memo no.661 dated 21.05.2015 and the petitioners9 name were placed in seniority list at Serial Nos.355, 367, 348, 362 and 334 respectively. 4. Thereafter Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited issued notification vide dated 03.07.2015 issued under the signature of the Respondent No.4 by which 59 persons have been granted promotion from Assistant Electrical Engineers to Electrical Executive Engineers and several junior persons to the petitioners, have been granted promotion, however, the petitioners have been denied to grant promotion to the posts of Electrical Executive Engineer. It is submitted that petitioners had filed representation before the Respondent no.3 on 10.07.2015, requesting him to consider their claim and grant them promotion to the post of Electrical Executive Engineers from the date when the juniors have been granted promotion with all consequential benefits, however, till date no action has been taken by the respondents on their representation. It is submitted that the petitioners have already cleared their written test as well as the interview against the advertisement bearing No.01/2008 dated 20.09.2008 whereby eligible candidates were called for appointment on the post of 2025:JHHC:34739 6 Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Electrical Engineer (General), Assistant Engineer (IT) & Assistant Executive Engineer (Transmission). However, when there was inordinate delay then the petitioners and others being aggrieved with the action of Department, moved to this High Court by filing Writ Petitions being WP(S) No.5219/2009, WP (S) No.5235/2009, WP(S) No.2406/2010 & WP(S) No.4389/2011. This High Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the Writ Petitions vide order dated 30.03.2011 and 20.09.2011 and directed the department concerned to appoint them within a period of four weeks and they were appointed in the year 2011. 5. It is further submitted that the department has earlier issued a tentative Gradation List for determining inter-se seniority of Assistant Electrical Engineer vide Memo No.661 dated 21.05.2015. The petitioners have appropriately been placed in the seniority list as per the merit list. However, the JBVNL vide its Notification dated 03.07.2015 granted promotion to 59 persons from Assistant Electrical Engineers to Electrical Executive Engineers by ignoring their claim. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not been given promotion but several juniors to the petitioners were granted promotion which is under challenge in this writ application. The petitioners have filed representation for grant of promotion on 10.07.2015 which has been enclosed as Annexure-6 to this writ application. It is submitted that respondents in the counter affidavit have enclosed the Office Order No.1194 dated 07.07.2012 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Personnel Department), whereby for the promotion Kalawdhi has been determined for promotion based Grade Pay. So far as promotion 2025:JHHC:34739 7 from Grade Pay Rs.5500 to promotion to the post of Grade Pay of Rs.6600 has been fixed of five years as minimum requisite period of service. It is submitted that the period of Kalawadhi cannot be applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of this case as the petitioners were not at fault and were willing to join but respondents did not allow them to join in the earlier year. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contention, has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) (2007) 1 SCC 405 (para-6 and 7) (ii) 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 486 (para-18 to 21) (iii) W.P.(S) No.1778 of 2017 (Disposed of on 25.07.2018) (iv) W.P.(S) No.1352 of 2007 (Disposed of on 02.02.2011 (para-6 to 10) (v) W.P.(S) No.434 of 2018 (Disposed of on 20.01.2021) It is submitted that in view of the above, this writ petition may be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that this writ petition is devoid of merit and no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners and hence this writ petition may be dismissed. It is submitted that no provision has been made for relaxation of period of Kalawdhi of five years and the period of Kalawadhi cannot be relaxed or deviated It is submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee has submitted its report on 20.06.2015 vide Annexure-C enclosed in the counter affidavit. It is submitted that pursuant to the implementation of new Kalawdhi i.e. time bound for grade to grade promotion in the service of the Jharkhand Government, JBVNL has also accustomed grade to grade promotion in Kalawdhi system for promotion of its employees vide Office order no.1194 dated 07.07.2012 and photo 2025:JHHC:34739 8 copy of Office Order no.1194 dated 07.07.2012 is enclosed as Annexure-A. It is submitted that as per provision laid down in the aforesaid order the Kalawdhi for promotion for Assistant Executive Engineer (Grade pay of Rs.5,400) to the post Electrical Executive Engineer (Grade Pay Rs.6,600) has been fixed for five years in normal circumstances. However, it is also provided therein that whether vacancies are available due to non-fulfilment of required Kalawadhi for promotion to promotion is not possible to non- fulfilment of required Kalawdhi then 50 per cent relaxation in required Kalawdhi will be allowed of the accumulated Kalawdhi on the post held by the employee and one stage lower post is completed in such circumstances, Kalawdhi for promotion Assistant Executive Engineer to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer will be decided by relaxing 50 per cent of Kalavdhi i.e. 2 ½ years. It is submitted that a meeting of departmental proceeding committee was held on 31.12.2013 for consideration of promotion of employees Assistant Executive Engineer to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer and in view of the provisions laid down in the aforesaid office order no.1194 dated 07.07.2012 promotion of several Assistant Executive Engineer, who were juniors in gradation but had completed Kalawdhi by releasing 50 per cent Kalawdhi, were allowed promotion to the post of Electrical Executive Engineers. It is submitted that as a consequence of application of Kalawdhi system in promotion it was observed that many juniors in the Cadre became Seniors due to earlier promotion on the post of Electrical Executive Engineer and several Senior Assistant 2025:JHHC:34739 9 Executive Engineer, who have not promoted due to non-fulfilment of Kalawdhi, made representation because such promotion. It submitted that a high level committee under the Chairmanship of Director (Technical) JBVNL constituted vide Office Order No.583 dated 15.04.2014 to consider the matter raised by the Senior Electrical Executive Engineers and the Committee submitted its report which was taken into consideration and thereafter, a legal opinion was sought for very Senior Law Advisor-cum-Additional Secretary, JBVNL who in his opinion dated 22.12.2014 had not found any illegality in allowing promotion to those who completed and Kalawdhi even they were junior in the cadre. It is submitted that after the opinion given by the Senior Law Advisor further a meeting of DPC was held on 20.06.2015 for consideration of promotion from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer to the Electrical Executive Engineer and in view of the recommendation of the DPC, promotion of Respondent No.5 to 31 have been allowed to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer and hence there is no merit in this writ petition and hence, this writ petition may be dismissed. 8. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 cannot now raise the ground for not granting promotion to the petitioners on account of their non- fulfilling 8Kalawadhi9 i.e. the minimum period of service required to be put in for the promotions as persons junior to the petitioners have been granted promotion. It is submitted that the respondents are now trying to victimize the petitioners on account of fault of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 alone, which is against the principles of natural justice 2025:JHHC:34739 10 and violates the petitioners9 fundamental rights as guaranteed under article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that though the petitioners are entitled to their salary and other benefits also from the date when their juniors were being paid their salary. However, without prejudice their contentions and their rights, they are ready to forego the same. It is submitted that the respondents cannot deprive them of promotions and seniority over other selected candidates who were below them in gradation list. It is submitted that other selected candidates, who were juniors to the petitioners in the gradation list and have been promoted, has not been denied by the concerned respondents as it is admitted in Para-8 of the counter affidavit. Hence this writ petition may be allowed. 9. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.24 and 26 has submitted that promotion is not a matter of right and the petitioners cannot claim the same as their right and cannot take a stand that same is violation of their fundamental right as enshrined in Constitution of India. 10. It is submitted that the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure-5) as contained in Notification No.918 issued under the signature of DGM (HR), JUVNL whereby and whereunder, the Respondents have been given time bound promotion as they have been appointed in the year 2009 on the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer after successfully qualifying the recruitment procedure arising out of Advertisement No.01/2008. Subsequently as per office order dated 07.07.2012 as contained in Officer Order No.1194 issued under the signature of Secretary, the rules have been framed for giving the benefit of time bound promotion to the employees of JBVNL. 2025:JHHC:34739 11 11. It is submitted that the appointment of the Respondent No.24 is of 16.11.2009 and Respondent No.26 is of 16.11.2009 and since, they were found eligible in terms of the rules of the and hence promotion, they have been considered for time bound promotion. 12. It is submitted that the petitioners have been appointed in the light of compliance of the order passed by this Hon9ble Court dated 30.03.2011 in W.P. (S) No.583 of 2010 and other analogous cases and the petitioners have been appointed in the year 2011 whereas the Respondent Nos. 24 and 26 have already been appointed on 16.11.2009 as they were found eligible and fit for appointment in the recruitment process arising out of Advertisement No.01/2008. 13. It is submitted that that since the petitioners have been appointed in the year 2011 and their date of appointment is also disclosed as 01.08.2011 and they are juniors to Respondent Nos.24 and 26, hence they could not be found eligible in terms of rules of time bound promotion by relaxing Kalawadhi and hence the writ petition is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed. 14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of both the sides. 15. It further reveals that during pendency of the writ petition Respondent Nos.19 and 21 have expired and as such their names were deleted vide order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon9ble Mr. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary) of this Court. 16. It transpires that the petitioners have claimed for promotion from the date when juniors to the petitioners have been promoted after relaxing the Kalawadhi, however the respondents have taken the plea that petitioners had not completed Kalawdhi on 03.07.2015 i.e. the date of notification of private respondents (Annexure-5). 2025:JHHC:34739 12 17. It transpires that the writ petitioners have not stated in the writ petition as to when they were appointed rather they have claimed promotion on the ground that the persons who are junior to the writ petitioners have been granted promotion on 03.07.2015 whereas the petitioners have been denied promotions at that relevant time. 18. However, from going through the counter affidavits filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Respondent Nos.24 and 26, it would appear that the writ petitioners were appointed in the year 2011 on 01.08.2011 pursuant to the order dated 20.09.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No.4389 of 2011 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice D.N. Patel as then His Lordship was) of this Court and also in the light of common order dated 30.03.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No.583 of 2010 and analogous cases (Justice R.R. Prasad as then His Lordship was). 19. 19. From going through the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent-JBVNL, it would appear that the Respondent-JBVNL have not denied the claim of the petitioners that they have been selected in the same transaction by the Respondent-JUVNL rather they have taken the stand that the petitioners were appointed later on in the year 2011 in the light of order dated 30.03.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No.583 of 2010 and analogous cases by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice R.R. Prasad as then His Lordship was) of this Court which have been enclosed as Annexure-2 series. 20. No rule has been shown by the Respondent-JUVNL which would reveal that seniority has to be reckoned from the date of joining of the concerned person instead of date of notification. 21. It is further evident that vide Notification No.1853 dated 11.10.2017 (part of Annexure-8 series) the petitioner No.5 Pramod Kumar Gupta was granted regular promotion in 2017. 2025:JHHC:34739 13 22. It further transpires that even the remaining Petitioner No.1 to 4 namely, Ajit Nirmal Tirkey, Satya Narayan Patar, Gaurav Kumar, Brajesh Kumar Birua have been granted promotion vide Notification No.2525 dated 25.10.2019 which have been enclosed as part of Annexure-8 series. 23. It transpires that apprehending their seniority four (04) writ petitioners had represented before the department on 20.04.2015 before Respondent No.3 to maintain their seniority as per merit list for issuance of seniority list. 24. It further transpires that petitioners have been represented earlier for grant of promotion on 10.07.2015 (i.e. Annexure-6) when the juniors to the petitioners were given promotion. 25. Thereafter the Petitioner No.5 was promoted on 11.10.2017 whereas Petitioner No.1 to 4 were granted promotion vide Notification N.2525 dated 25.10.2019 as contained in Annexure-8 series on completion of their Kalawdhi. 26. The specific stand of the JBVNL in the counter affidavit dated 20.09.2016 at para 7 and 8 is that pursuant to the implementation of new Kalawdhi i.e. time bound for grade to grade promotion in the service of the Jharkhand Government, JUVNL has also accustomed grade to grade promotion in Kalawadhi system for promotion of its employees vide Office Order No.1194 dated 07.07.2012. It is further stated that as per provision laid down in the aforesaid order the Kalawadhi for promotion for Assistant Executive Engineer (Grade pay of Rs.5,400/) to the post of Electrical Executive Engineer (Grade Pay Rs.6,600/) has been fixed for five years in normal circumstances. However, it is also provided therein that when vacancies are available due to non-fulfillment of required Kalawadhi for promotion to promotion is not possible due to non-fulfillment of 2025:JHHC:34739 14 required Kalawadhi then 50 per cent relaxation in required Kalawadhi will be allowed of the accumulated Kalawadhi on the post held by the employee and one stage lower post is completed in such circumstances, Kalawadhi for promotion AEE to the post of EEE will be decided by relaxing 50 per cent of Kalawadhi i.e. 2 ½ years. 27. From the stand taken by the Respondent No.1 to 4 in the counter affidavit, it is clear that the concerned respondents have relaxed the period of Kalawadhi in case of promotion of AEE (i.e. Assistant Electrical Engineer) to the post of EEE (i.e. Executive Electrical Engineer) and in that view of the matter the discrimination cannot be made by the respondents with the writ petitioners. 28. It is further evident that respondents have not denied the fact in the counter affidavit that petitioners and the contesting Respondents 5 to 31were appointed in the same transaction except Respondent Nos.24 and 26. The respondents have taken the stand of very Senior Legal Advisor-cum-Additional Secretary, JBVNL which is also not enclose in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 29. It has been held in the case of R.N Dhawan vs. Union of India reported in (1981) 2 SLJ 398 by Hon9ble Supreme Court at paras 24 and 27 as follows:- <Para-24:- In our opinion, no new facts came to light such as ought to have persuaded the Board to reverse their decision of 1974. The decision of 1974 appears to be well considered there was no ground to alter or upset it. On the whole case we think Dhawan is entitled to be restored to the seniority which was assigned to him by the decision of the Board taken in 1974 and given effect to on March 6, 1975 by fixing his pay etc. That there was an administrative error and that this caused hardship to Dhawan resulting in loss in seniority and pay are facts of the greatest importance in this case. We cannot shut our 2025:JHHC:34739 15 eyes to them. The Board expressed sympathy and said that it was unfortunate that Dhawan's transfer was delayed. But they were unwilling to correct the admitted administrative error resulting in injustice to their employee. The Board has a duty to act fairly. That is the duty laid on everyone who decides anything (Local Govt. Board v. Alridge, 1915 A.C. 120). Para-27:- Loss of seniority and pay will give rise to a right if it is the consequence of an administrative error. A claimant can always ask for the rectification of an error if he can show that it has resulted in loss of seniority and pay to him. In our view Dhawan has succeeded in doing so. There is no reason why the court should not undo the wrong done to him. The Railway circular dated October 16, 1964 was framed to meet such cases. We have no doubt that if there was a case in which hardship ought to have been mitigated it was this.= 30. Therefore, it has been settled by the Hon9ble Supreme Court that of loss of seniority taken place due to administrative fault on the part of authority, then the same has to be rectified as it will result into injustice to those employees who have lost their seniority due to administrative fault on the part of the said officials i.e. JBVNL. 31. It is held in the case of Ravi Bhushan Chakrawarti vs. The State of Bihar & Others reported in (2008) 2 PLJR 461 at para-6 as follows:- <Para-6:- It has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that during the pendency of the writ application the letter of appointment has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 14.7.2003 and he has joined on 16.7.2003. Now the only question to be decided is regarding the seniority of the petitioner as his appointment and joining has been delayed for almost 3 years on account of delay and laches caused by the respondents. The seniority of the petitioner should be decided considering his place in the merit list. In support of his submission counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Arbind Kumar Bharti v. The State of Bihar, 1997 (1) PLJR 641. In this decision it has been held that it is settled law that if some persons are appointed in one transaction in pursuance of 2025:JHHC:34739 16 one advertisement then seniority is to be dependent on the basis of position of such persons, as appearing in the common merit list and not on the basis of the date of joining.= Therefore, it is well settled that if some persons are appointed in one transaction in pursuance of one advertisement then seniority shall be determined on the basis of position of such persons as appearing in the common merit list and not on the basis of date of joining. 32. It is held in the case of Sri Kapildeo Prasad and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2001 (1) PLJR 372 at para nos.14 to 20 as follows:- <Para-14:- Admittedly, their is no separate rule of seniority for Junior Engineers framed by the State, but they are guided by general rule/guidelines issued from time to time. Para-15:- The aforesaid fact has been taken into consideration by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bishundeo Mahto v. State of Bihar, reported in 1982 B.B.C.J. 45. Para-16. In the said case, the Court took into consideration the Circular No. 6509-A dated 12th December, 1934 relating to determination of seniority of officers in State and subordinate services where more than one officer is appointed to the service at the same time. Para-17. The Full Bench held that by virtue of Notification No. 2555/31 27/50-A dated 15th April, 1950 issued by the State, the Notification of 1934 has the force of statutory rule under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Full Bench further held that the said statutory rule of 1934 has over riding effect on circulars issued from time to time including the circular dated 26th August, 1972. Para-18:- Admittedly, the 1934 Rule is still in vogue having not superseded by any other rule framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In terms with the said rule, if officers are recruited by direct recruitment, in pursuance of merit list, full consideration is given to the opinion of the Board i.e. the merit, as reflected in the merit list. Even in the subsequent circular issued by the State on 26th August, 1972, similar law laid down to fix the seniority of direct recruit, appointed in pursuance of a common 2025:JHHC:34739 17 advertisement, on the basis of their position in the merit list. By 1975 circular, as referred by the State, the position has not been altered. Para-19:- Both the petitioners and contesting Respondents 3 to 14 having appointed initially in pursuance of common advertisement, on the basis of a common merit list, the seniority between them has to be determined on the basis of their position in the merit list and same cannot be altered on the basis of date of joining, joining being based on fortuitous circumstances. If the position of petitioners was shown above the contesting Respondents 3 to 14 in the merit list, at the time of initial appointment, on regularisation of their service made in pursuance of same Act by common order, the original seniority is to continue, which is to be based on the basis of the merit list. Para-20:- Thus the petitioners' position in the merit list being above the contesting Respondents 3 to 14, the fact having not denied by the Respondents, I hold the petitioners senior to contesting Respondents 3 to 14.= 33. Thus it is evident that appointment is done in pursuance of common advertisement, then seniority is to be determined on the basis of their position on the merit list and cannot be altered on the basis of their joining. 34. It has been held by Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Jha vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 405 at para 6 and 7 as follows:- “Para-6:- There is no dispute that the appellant was ranked higher to Respondent 8. There is also no dispute that in the appointment letter the appellant was given six weeks' time to join. Merely because Respondent 8 joined earlier that did not in any way affect the merit placement. Para-7:- This Court in Chairman, Puri Gramya Bank v. Ananda Chandra Das [(1994) 6 SCC 301 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1384 : (1994) 28 ATC 293] held as follows : (SCC p. 301, para 2) <2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 1007 of 1988, dated 4-3-1992. The respondent and others were selected by direct recruitment as managers of Rural Bank. His rank was No. 9 in the merit list. He was directed to be 2025:JHHC:34739 18 given seniority on the basis of the date of his reporting to duty. It is reported that the first respondent is dead. The only question in this case is that what shall be the ranking among the direct recruits? Is it the date on which they joined duty or according to the ranking given by the Selection Board? On comparative evaluation of the respective merits of the candidates for direct recruitment, the Board has prepared the merit list on the basis of the ranking secured at the time of the selection. It is settled law that if more than one are selected, the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and the roster. By mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roster. The High Court, is, therefore, wholly wrong in its conclusion that the seniority shall be determined on the basis of the joining reports given by the candidates selected for appointment by direct recruitment and length of service on its basis. The view, therefore, is wrong. However, we need not interfere with the order, since the first respondent has died.= 35. It has been held by the Hon9ble Supreme Court that if more than one are selected, then the seniority is as per ranking of the direct recruits subject to the adjustment of the candidates selected on applying the rule of reservation and the roster. By mere fortuitous chance of reporting to duty earlier would not alter the ranking given by the Selection Board and the arranged one as per roster. 36. It has been held by Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2007) 11 SCC 447 at para nos. 15 and 16 as follows:- “Para-15:- In Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav [(1996) 4 SCC 127 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 592] the accused army personnel himself was responsible for delay as he escaped from detention. Then he raised an objection against initiation of proceedings on the ground that such proceedings ought to have been initiated within six months 2025:JHHC:34739 19 under the Army Act, 1950. Referring to the above maxim, this Court held that the accused could not take undue advantage of his own wrong. Considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court held that presence of the accused was an essential condition for the commencement of trial and when the accused did not make himself available, he could not be allowed to raise a contention that proceedings were time-barred. This Court (at SCC p. 142, para 28) referred to Broom's Legal Maxims (10th Edn.), p. 191 wherein it was stated: <It is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognised in courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure.= Para-16:- It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, <a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong=. 37. In view of the judgment of Hon9ble Supreme Court, it is well settled that a person or an authority cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of its wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is also held that a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit of his/its own wrong. 38. It has been held by Co-ordinate Bench (Hon9ble Mr. Justice D.N. Patel as then His Lordship was) of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2011 in W.P. (S) No.1352 of 2007 at para 4 to 10 as follows:- <Para-4:- Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that petitioners were amongst the successful candidates for the post of Teacher. After being selected, petitioners have submitted all their documents about educational qualification etc. within time, i.e. on 22nd November, 2003. 2025:JHHC:34739 20 Other selected candidates were appointed on 22nd December, 2003. Some correspondences were being exchanged for verification of the documents submitted by the petitioners and though this verification process was also complete by 1st November, 2004, petitioners were issued appointment letters on 22nd December, 2004. Para-5:- Looking to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents dated 17th October, 2011, especially Annexures C, D & E, it appears that the documents submitted by petitioner No. 1 were sent for verification on 14th January, 2004 and the same has been received after verification on 1st November, 2004. So far as petitioner no 2 is concerned, the documents submitted by him were sent for verification on 1st December, 2003 and after due verification, the same were received by the respondents on 15th December, 2003. Thus, it appears from these documents that there was no fault on the part of the petitioners as they have submitted the required documents for verification on time. Para:-6:- Verification process of the documents submitted by petitioner no. 2 was already completed on 15th December, 2003. Unnecessarily the respondents waited and issued appointment letters to the petitioner no. 2 on 2nd December, 2004. Therefore, petitioner no. 2 should have been given notional date of appointment along with other similarly situated candidates, i.e. with effect from 22nd December, 2003. Para-7:- So far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, it appears that his documents were sent after few weeks for verification because petitioner no. 1 has submitted all the documents on 22nd November, 2003, which were sent for verification on 14th January, 2004. After verification, communication was received on 1st November, 2004. It ought to be considered by the respondents that as per Office order at Annexure 3 to the Memo of the petition, especially clause 3. 4. 7, 11 and 12 thereof, verification can be done later on also and if the documents are found false, fabricated or otherwise tampered with, the appointment can be cancelled. Annexure 3 is an Office order dated 2nd December, 2003 issued by respondent no. 4, which has not been followed in this case and unnecessarily the petitioners have been issued appointment letters on 2nd December, 2004 instead of 22nd December, 2003, i.e. the date on which other similarly 2025:JHHC:34739 21 situated candidates selected for the post of Teacher were appointed. Para-8:- In view of these facts and looking to Annexure 3 to the writ petition, I, hereby, direct the respondents to issue necessary office order, circular, treating 22nd December, 2003 (the date on which other successful candidates, for the post of Teacher, have been issued appointment letters) as the date of appointment of the petitioners. Para-9:- The petitioners are actually appointed on 2nd December, 2004 and Counsel for the petitioner has made it clear that the petitioners are not claiming any salary from 22nd December, 2003 to the actual date of appointment, i.e. 2nd December, 2004. But, if 22nd December, 2003 is not treated as the date of appointment of the petitioners, they will lose their seniority, G.P.F & Pensionery benefits etc. Para-10:- I, therefore, direct the respondents to issue office circular/order/notification giving notional date of appointment with effect from 22nd December, 2003 to the petitioners.= 39. It has been held by Co-ordinate Bench (Hon9ble Mr. Justice S.N. Pathak as then His Lordship was ) of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2018 in W.P. (S) No.1778 of 2017 as follows:- “Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The joining of the petitioner was delayed due to the laches on the part of the respondents not of the petitioner. This Court in W.P.(S) No.1352 of 2007, considering the same issue and has held that: <In view of these facts and looking to Annexure-3 to the writ petition, I, hereby, direct the respondents to issue necessary office order, circular, treating 22nd December, 2003 (the date on which other successful candidates, for the post of Teacher, have been issued appointment letters) as the date of appointment of the petitioners.= The petitioner is not claiming salary of the said period, but admittedly, if date of joining of the petitioner is not shifted from 02.01.2015 to 27.05.2013 he will lose his seniority and other benefits. The same issue fell for consideration before this Court in case of Ram Lal Jha vs. State of Jharkhand, passed in W.P.(S) No.2211 of 2009, which was disposed of on 12.09.2012 and the same view was reiterated for consideration 2025:JHHC:34739 22 of notional date of appointment w.e.f. the date the others were allowed to join. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, I hereby, direct the respondents to issue suitable order, treating 27.05.2013 (the date on which juniors to the petitioner, for the post of Assistant, have been appointed) as the date of appointment of the petitioner and further direct to issue suitable order giving notional date of appointment w.e.f 27.05.2013 to the petitioner.= 40. The above case fully supports the claim of the writ petitioners as in the above case it has been held that joining of the petitioners was held due to latches on the part of the respondents not of the petitioners and therefore, the Co-ordinate Bench held that if date of joining of the petitioner is not shifted from 02.01.2015 to 27.05.2013 he will lose his seniority and other benefits. The same issue fell for consideration before this Court in case of Ram Lal Jha vs. State of Jharkhand, passed in W.P.(S) No.2211 of 2009, which was disposed of on 12.09.2012 and the same view was reiterated for consideration of notional date of appointment w.e.f. the date the others were allowed to join. 41. In view of the law laid down by Hon9ble Supreme Court, this Court is inclined to allow the benefit of promotion to the petitioners on the grounds:- (i) JBVNL cannot take advantage of its own wrong, (ii) JBVNL failed to produce any Rule/Order that appointment/seniority has to be reckoned from date of joining/notification but not as per merit list, (iii) The JBVNL i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not produced the opinion of Senior Legal Advisor in its counter affidavit or during course of argument, rather they have referred the notes of Senior Legal Advisor-cum Additional Secretary, JBVNL, 2025:JHHC:34739 23 (iv) There is clear discrimination with the petitioners as the persons who were appointed in the same transaction i.e. the petitioners have denied promotion without relaxing Kalawadhi whereas several persons i.e. Respondent Nos.5 to 31 (Except Respondent No.24 and 26) who were junior to the petitioners, have been granted promotion by relaxing the Kalawadhi on the basis of opinion of very Senior Legal Advisor-cum-Additional Secretary, JBVNL, who had not found any illegality in allowing promotion to those who were junior to the petitioners in cadre, rather the respondents have produced the note sheet addressed to the Joint Secretary and approved by GM (P & GA), CMD and in the said note sheet the opinion of Senior Legal Advisor has been referred, (v) It further reveals from the proceeding of D.P.C dated 20.06.2015 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit) that the date of joining of the persons, who were found eligible to be promoted as well as who were denied promotions, have not been disclosed in the meeting of D.P.C, (vi) Therefore, the respondents have admitted in their counter affidavit that the contesting respondents were junior to the petitioners and (vii) The approach of the respondents is clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by depriving the petitioners to the promoted post of Executive Electrical Engineers from the date when the junior to the petitioners were promoted. 42. 42. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and in view of the law laid down by the Hon9ble Supreme Court of India, Hon9ble Jharkhand High Court and Hon9ble Patna High Court, this writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that the petitioners will be 2025:JHHC:34739 24 entitled to promotion from the date i.e. 03.07.2015, on which the juniors to the petitioners have been granted promotion. However, the petitioners will not be entitled for the benefits/salary as they have not worked for the said post during the said period. However, they will be entitled to receive the salary/benefits on the date they were promoted to the post of Electrical Executive Engineers i.e. on 11.10.2017 and 25.10.2019 (Annexure-8 series). 43. Thus, this writ petition is allowed in part to the extent as indicated above. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Dated: 18.11.2025 Saket/- NAFR