2025:JHHC:28809 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1418 of 2025 ------ Ranjit Kumar Ghasi, son of Shri Mahendra Prasad Ghasi, presently posted , Water Ways Division, Ranchi, P.O and P.S. Ranchi, District- Ranchi. …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand,, Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 4. The Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 5. The Undersecretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 6. The Engineer in Chief-I, Department of Water Resources, office at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 7. Bablu Das, presently posted as under Division-4, Geriya (Water Division-2, Jamtara), P.O and P.S and District-Jamtara. …. Respondent(s) ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For the State Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mines-III Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC Mines-III ------ 04/18.09.2025: Heard the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is that his case has not been considered for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer, though the junior to the petitioner has been considered and promoted. 3. From the records, I find that the petitioner is senior to Bablu Das, who has already been promoted. This fact has also been admitted by the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that only as the vigilance clearance report of the petitioner was not with the Committee/respondents, the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion. He also submits that not only this petitioner, but due to want of vigilance clearance report, the promotion of several persons has also not been considered. 5. It is the duty of the employer to obtain all the necessary documents before considering promotion of the employees. It is not within the domain of the petitioner to produce the vigilance clearance report. It was 2. the duty of the respondent-employer to produce the said report before the Committee, who had considered promotion of the other similarly situated persons. The denial of promotion of the petitioner on the said ground is absolutely bad and unreasonable. 6. Thus, I direct the respondents to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents decide to promote the petitioner, the seniority of the petitioner should be restored. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. 18th September, 2025 Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)