2026:JHHC:663 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.1610 of 2025 ----- Sahaja Nand Singh, son of late Baleshwar Singh, resident of village Korara, PO Korara, PS Paliganj, District Patna, Bihar … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Agriculture Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department, Nepal House, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi 3.Deputy Secretary, Agriculture Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 4.Under Secretary, Agriculture Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi 5.Ashok Samrat, In-charge Director (Soil Conservation), Agriculture Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department, Krishi Bhawan, Kanke Road, PO and PS Kanke, District Ranchi … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC-II Mr. Sushant Kumar, AC to SC-II For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kr. Pathak, Advocate Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate …...... 09 /12.01.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed to quash the Memo No. 2367 dated 15.10.2024 issued by the Under Secretary, Agriculture Animal Husbandry & Cooperative Department, Government of Jharkhand whereby the respondent no. 5 has been appointed as In-charge Director, Soil Conservation, Government of Jharkhand. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is holding a Class-I post and there is no one in the entire Department of Agriculture who is holding a Class-I post. It is his contention that since the petitioner is holding a Class-I post, he should be made the In-charge Director. He further submits that as per the Rules 2026:JHHC:663 2 though the petitioner is not in the Grade-Pay of Rs. 6600/- for three years but he has more than 5 ½ months training from ICAR which is also a necessary qualification for the post of Director. It is his contention that the respondent no. 5 though have more than three years’ experience in Rs. 6600/- scale but he does not have the requisite training from ICAR. It is his further contention that ignoring all these aspects, the respondents no. 5 has been made the In- charge Director, Soil Conservation. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 5 submits that this writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the petitioner does not have any vested right to become In-charge Director. The petitioner initially joined in Class-III cadre but later in 2016 only he came in Class-II service. His pay scale of Rs. 6600/- was enhanced only from 2025 and admittedly he has not completed 3 years in the said scale, which is a qualification to be appointed as permanent Director, Soil Conservation. He admits that the petitioner is now in Class-I service and he is not. He further submits that the respondent no. 5 is a direct recruit in 1990 in Class-II service and since 2010 he is in Grade-Pay of Rs 7600/-. Thus he has got a better right than the petitioner to be placed as In-charge. He further submits that when the charge was given, the petitioner was not even in Class-I cadre and not even in the Grade-Pay of Rs. 6600/-. He contends that the decision of Establishment Committee has not been challenged thus, the petitioner has got no right. He lastly submits that the post of Director, Soil Conservation is an Ex-Cadre post and the respondent no.5 is the best suited to be the In-charge as the said post is not filled up on permanent basis since long. 5. Mr. Aboobacker Siddique P, the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative is also present to assist this Court. He submits that in the Department of Agriculture there are 8 categories, they are:- Horticulture, Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Agronomy, Agricultural Engineering, Agriculture Chemistry, Plant Protection and Agricultural Statics. It is his 2026:JHHC:663 3 submission that the petitioner is in Horticulture category whereas the respondent no. 5 is in Agronomy. He further submits that the post of Director being an Ex-cadre post, the same is not promotional post and has to be filled up by open advertisement. Twice steps were taken to fill up the said post but there was no suitable candidate thus the State has now taken a decision to amend the Rules. He also submits that the petitioner has not completed three years in the Grade-Pay of Rs. 6600/- but the respondent no. 5 has. He also admits that the respondent no. 5 who is now In-charge Director does not have the requisite training from ICAR which is also necessary but he has more than 10 years’ experience. No employee has any vested right to be an In-charge. Posting someone as In-charge is an temporary arrangement, till the post is permanently filled. Here the post of Director is vacant and twice the attempt to fill the said post on permanent basis failed, thus, the adhocism is continuing. Even if no one has any vested right to be posted as In-charge, but in government department some transparency must be maintained to place someone as In-charge of the department/post. On the whims and fancies of someone a particular officer cannot be made In-charge. 6. The entire file has been produced before this Court. I have gone through the entire file and have gone through the counter affidavit also. From the counter affidavit, I find that the post of Director fell vacant since long and it was necessary to give charge to some person to the post of Director. The last In-charge Director, Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh superannuated on 31.08.2024. Annexure-I at page 27 of the counter affidavit is the Minutes of Meeting dated 05.09.2024. From the perusal of the aforesaid Minutes of Meeting, I find that when the file was placed before the Minister, the Minister of the Department nominated respondent no. 5 as the In-charge Director. The note at page 75 of the File No. 06-Krishi Raj-6/13 suggests that on or before 04.09.2014 the Minister of the Department had nominated respondent no. 5 to be the In-charge 2026:JHHC:663 4 Director. It is admitted that at that point of time the respondent no. 5 was the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Soil Conservation at Deoghar. After the Minister expressed the wish to place this respondent no. 5 as the In-charge Director, the process was started by the Secretariat to meet the both ends to fill the gaps, so that respondent no. 5 can be made the In-charge. This is evident from Annexure-I at page 27 which clearly suggests that the respondent no. 5 was brought to Ranchi and was posted as the Deputy Director, Soil Conservation. Thereafter on his assumption of charge as Deputy Director, he was made the In-charge Director. Thus, the entire process was at the behest of Minister. At that point of time as stated by the Secretary, there were other seniors also. This clearly suggests that to favour respondent no. 5, this exercise was undertaken. 7. This Court fails to understand when there were seniors then why they were overlooked. Even from the file itself it is quite clear that neither any option was given to the Minister nor panel of eligible candidates were placed before the Minister from where a person could have been chosen rather the Minister directly named the respondent no. 5 to become the In-charge Director, thereafter the follow up process was initiated. Propriety demanded that atleast names of some eligible officers should have been placed, so that the most eligible person could have been chosen. The entire process smacks of arbitrariness. Though none of the parties can say to have any vested right to become an In-charge yet the process to be followed should be without any bias and should be transparent. Transparency is missing in the entire process and there is an element of biasness. 8. Thus, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order contained in Memo No. 2367 dated 15.10.2024. The matter is remanded to the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Cooperative. The Secretary should take a proper decision considering all the aspects including seniority, qualification and experience of the available officers and then pass an 2026:JHHC:663 5 appropriate order recommending to the authority the most eligible officer as the Director, Soil Conservation. It will be open to the Secretary to consider the petitioner and respondent no. 5 also along with others, as I have not rejected the claim of either of them. 9. Till such order is passed, the Director, Horticulture, who is an IAS Officer should be given the charge of Director, Soil Conservation immediately. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. 11. I.A. No. 14684 of 2025 stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 12.01.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 14.01.2026