2026:JHHC:14567 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 1095 of 2024 ---------- Rajesh Manjhi, aged about 35 years, son of Sri Vishambar Manjhi, resident of House no. 46, Tamar Bodhdih, Amlesa, P.O. Amlesa, P.S. Tamar, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand-835225. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand-834004. 2. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. 3. Engineer-in-Chief I, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. 4. Prakash Kumar Minz, Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, Kharkai Canal Circle, Adityapur, PO and PS Adityapur, Dist. Saraikela- Kharrsawan, Jharkhand-831013. ………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohan Dubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, SC(L&C)-III Mr. Deepak Kumar, AC to SC(L&C)-III ---------- 06/ 12.05.2026 The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for following reliefs: I. Commanding upon the Respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority the Petitioner has been left out of the purview of the Order dated 30.12.2023 (Annexure-8) by way of which Junior Engineers (Mechanical) in the Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, were granted promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) in the said Department, despite the Petitioner satisfying all the requirements for promotion and despite his counterpart (Respondent No. 4) who is placed below him in the Gradation List contained in the Order dated 3.10.2018 (Annexure-st 1 A being granted the same; II. Upon being satisfied that the decision to leave out the Petitioner from the scope of the Order dated 30.12.2023 (Annexure-8) is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal, directing the Respondents to suitably modify the Order dated 30.12.2023 2026:JHHC:14567 2 (Annexure-8), thereby granting to the Petitioner promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), in the Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand, with all consequential benefits and arrears in pay, with effect from 30.12.2023; III. In the alternative to the relief claimed at relief no. II hereinabove, directing the Respondents to dispose of the representation dated 5.1.2024 (Annexure-9) made by the Petitioner, with a reasoned Order and all supporting documents, furnishing the reason why the candidature of the Petitioner has been superseded in favour of Respondent No. 4. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he joined the services in the year 2013 to the post of Junior Engineer. His name appears in the gradation list at Sl. 110(A) issued vide memo No. 3310 dated 03.10.2018. It is submitted that though petitioner is senior from Prakash Kumar Minj, who got promotion vide notification dated 30.12.2023, but in spite of fulfilling all the requisite criteria his candidature has not been considered. 3. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have taken a stand that the name of petitioner found at Sl. No. 66 in the DPC held on 23.08.2023, however, due to lack of vigilance report as well as ACR, the petitioner could not be promoted at that time. Again on 24.07.2025, the case of petitioner was not considered due to non- availability of seats in ST Category. 4. The issue with regard to non-consideration of employees for promotion due to lack of vigilance report as well as ACR has been dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No. 1418 of 2025 (Ranjit Kumar Ghasi Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.), wherein it has been held that 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 and it is the duty of the respondent-employer to produce such report before the D.P.C. who would consider the promotion. 5. As per the above observation and also in view of settled proposition of law that non-consideration of any employee for 2026:JHHC:14567 3 promotion on the ground of vigilance clearance as well as annual confidential report is non est in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, both the reports always remain with the employer; accordingly, the case of petitioners needs consideration. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as early as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If there is no other legal impediments in promoting the petitioner; his seniority shall be restored. 7. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 12th May, 2026 Kunal/- Uploaded on 21.05.2026