2026:JHHC:290 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7827 of 2025 Lalan Prasad Singh, son of late Puran Prasad Singh, resident of in front of SBI, Chiragora, P.O and P.S. Dhanbad, District, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. The Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. The Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division No. 2, Garhwa, P.O and P.S. and District- Garhwa. 5. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi. …... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate. For Resp. No. 5 M/s Richa Sanchita and Risheeta Singh, Advocates. For the State M/s Amitesh Kr. Geasen & Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG-IA ------ 02/07.01.2026: Heard the parties. 2. Since this is a writ of certiorari, the impugned reasoned order speaks for itself and no counter affidavit can supplement the reasons thereto, I am not calling for counter affidavit from the side of the respondent-State. 3. The benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme of the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.9.2025 as contained in Memo No. 4781 (Annexure-5 to this writ petition). The ground of rejection is that the petitioner has not passed the departmental examination,which is necessary for grant of promotion to the higher post. 4. The petitioner on the earlier round of litigation in WPS No. 3856 of 2025 had approached this Court praying therein for grant of the 1st ACP and 2nd MACP (both the in situ promotion). This Court directed the petitioner to approach the respondents and the respondents in turn were directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order as per the law and Rules & Regulation. 5. The impugned order was passed by the respondents denying the benefit of ACP and MACP on the ground mentioned in the order itself which is non-passing of the departmental examination. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer under the Road Construction Department in the year 1995. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Assistant Engineer on 31.12.2017 1. from the Rural Development Special Division No.-2 at Garhwa. Thus from the admitted fact, it is clear that in his entire tenure of 22 years, 3 months and 30 days, the petitioner was not promoted to any higher post. When the petitioner is not promoted to the higher post, he is entitled for the grant of benefits of ACP/MACP. As the petitioner did not pass the departmental examination, which was necessary for promotion to the higher post, the respondents did not grant the benefit of ACP/MACP to the petitioner. 7. The issue, whether the petitioner needs to pass the examination or he has to have the minimum qualification for grant of in-situ promotion, fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Amresh Kumar Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 496. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in paragraph 16, after referring to the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. G. Ranjanna reported in (2008) 14 SCC 721 held that in situ promotions are made to remove stagnation and to give certain monetary benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the fulfillment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non-functional in situ promotion. It is necessary to quote paragraphs 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment, which read as under:- “16. In Union of India Vs. G. Ganjanna reported in 2008) 14 SCC 721, the three-judges Bench of this Court held that in situ promotions are made to remove stagnation of grade C and Grade D employees by giving them certain monetary benefits. 17. It was further observed that fulfillment of educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules for the purposes of promotion are not necessary for non-functional in situ promotion. In other words, educational qualification required for the purposes of promotion is not necessary for the grant of in situ promotion, i.e. , only for extending the monetary benefit where there are no promotional avenues and the employees are likely to be stagnated.” 8. The case, in hand, is also for grant of in situ promotions where the petitioner will not assume any higher post, but will get the benefit of higher pay scale. To assume a higher post, there must be a necessity of higher educational qualification or additional qualification, but for grant of only higher scale, when actually no post is assumed by the employee, it is not necessary that he must possess any higher educational qualification. Basing on this principle, in a case where in situ promotion is granted, obtaining higher educational qualification becomes insignificant. 2. 9. Thus, relying upon the aforesaid judgment, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned order dated 25.9.2025 as contained in Memo No. 4781 (Annexure-5 to this writ petition) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of 1st ACP and 2nd MACP to the petitioner immediately from the date, when the petitioner is eligible. Since the petitioner has already superannuated, the respondent will revise the pension and post retiral benefits of the petitioner and will pay the arrears and pension accordingly. The entire process should be concluded within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stand disposed of. 7th January, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/-Cp2. A.F.R Uploaded on: 12.01.2026