2026:JHHC:15319 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1936 of 2025 ….….. Manoj Kumar Thakur, aged about 57 years, son of Late Ram Narayan Thakur, resident of Flat No. 401, Vaishnavi Apartment, Pandit Din Dayal Chowk, Harmu, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, District-Ranchi. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. State of Jharkhand; through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Ground Floor, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi. 4. Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi. 5. The Board of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi; through its Member; 6. The Member, Board of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, HEC Campus, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 7. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having address at Project Building, HEC, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 8. Sanyay Kumar Gupte, aged about 56 years, S/o Late Balram Sahay, R/o Vill-Kushpahai, P.O. Barmasia, P.S. Shikaripur, Dumka. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C.-VI For the Intervenor : Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, Advocate Ms. Niharika Nidihi, Advocate ….….. C.A.V. ON: 24/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have 2026:JHHC:15319 2 perused the pleadings, affidavits, and the documents placed on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner, who is working as Deputy Director in the Fisheries Department of the Government of Jharkhand, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary relief sought is for quashing and setting aside of the Final Seniority List published vide Letter No. 324 dated 22.03.2025 under the signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative, Government of Jharkhand. 3. Consequentially, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the Respondent Department to publish a fresh seniority list after meeting the objections. An Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 4822 of 2025) filed by the Petitioner seeking stay of the said list was partly disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025, directing that one seat of Joint Director Fisheries shall be kept reserved, subject to the final outcome of this writ petition. 4. The primary issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: - whether the Final Seniority List published vide Letter No. 324 dated 22.03.2025 is vitiated 2026:JHHC:15319 3 by any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 5. This issue is examined in the light of the specific contentions pressed by learned counsel for the Petitioner which are as follows: (i) The finalization of the seniority list required approval of the Cabinet/Chief Minister; (ii) The objections raised by the Petitioner to the provisional seniority list were not considered before publication of the final list; (iii) The seniority list is fundamentally erroneous and faulty. 6. It has been submitted by the Learned counsel for the petitioner that matters relating to the seniority and service conditions of State Government employees require approval at the level of the Chief Minister, and that the impugned final seniority list, having been issued without such approval, is without authority of law and is therefore void ab initio. 7. It has further been contended that though the Petitioner submitted detailed objections to the provisional seniority list dated 12.03.2025 within the period prescribed, the Respondent Department proceeded to publish the Final Seniority List on 22.03.2025 within ten days, without any genuine application of mind to the objections. In this regard, emphasis was placed on the 2026:JHHC:15319 4 specific objections of the Petitioner, including the alleged incorrect placement of certain officials. 8. It has been urged that the seniority list is fundamentally flawed, inasmuch as, it does not correctly reflect the service records and dates of joining of the officials concerned, and is accordingly liable to be quashed. 9. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition on both facts and law. It has been submitted that the seniority list of Fisheries Extension Officers was first fixed vide Letter No. 2408 dated 16.12.2008. The said seniority list was the subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 811 of 2009, in which the Petitioner himself was arrayed as Respondent No. 4, and had, at that time, actively supported the very seniority list that he now seeks to impugn. 10. Vide order dated 01.07.2019 passed in the said writ petition, this Court remitted the matter to the Respondent Department to decide the claims of the parties afresh after hearing all concerned. In compliance with the said remand order, the Respondent Department passed a reasoned order vide Notification No. 748 dated 21.06.2021, affirming the seniority determined under Letter No. 2408 dated 16.12.2008. The Petitioner did not 2026:JHHC:15319 5 challenge this reasoned order, thereby acquiescing to the determination. 11. It has been further submitted that the subsequent provisional seniority list published vide Letter No. 273 dated 12.03.2025, and the impugned final seniority list published vide Letter No. 324 dated 22.03.2025, maintain precisely the same inter se order of seniority as was settled by the 2008 seniority list. Objections to the provisional list, including those filed by the Petitioner, were duly considered before publication of the final list. 12. As regards the requirement of Chief Ministerial approval, it has been submitted that the finalization of a seniority list within the cadre is a routine departmental function vested in the competent officer, and does not attract any concurrence of the Chief Minister. 13. On the eligibility of the Petitioner for promotion, it has been submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), which met on 04.04.2025 under the chairpersonship of the Member, Board of Revenue, found the Petitioner ineligible for consideration on two independent grounds: (a) pendency of departmental proceedings initiated vide Memo No. 1141 dated 25.08.2023; and (b) non-submission of Annual 2026:JHHC:15319 6 Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24, which is the personal responsibility of the officer concerned under Departmental Letter No. 196 dated 18.01.2017 and the Notification dated 01.07.2024. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8, had also filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition and has vehemently submitted that the DPC meeting dated 04.04.2025 had recommended his promotion as Joint Director Fisheries, along with Amarendra Kumar (Sl. No. 3). However, by reason of the interim order passed by this Court dated 24.04.2025, one promotional seat was kept vacant, and consequently Respondent No. 8 has been denied promotion. He supports the legality of the impugned seniority list and reiterates that the Petitioner's challenge is motivated and belated, filed only upon the Petitioner realizing that he would not be considered for promotion on account of his own failure to submit mandatory APARs and due to the pendency of departmental proceedings against him. 15. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties, this Court finds that the first contention of the Petitioner regarding the necessity of Chief Ministerial approval does 2026:JHHC:15319 7 not commend itself to this Court. The finalization of a seniority list within an existing service cadre, consequent upon hearing objections raised by the concerned officers, is in essence, a routine administrative exercise carried out by the competent departmental authority in discharge of its ordinary functions. No specific provision, statutory rule, or executive instruction has been brought on record by the Petitioner to show that the exercise of finalizing a seniority list within the Fisheries cadre is required to be routed through the Chief Minister. The mere issuance of the final list under the signature of Under Secretary does not render it illegal. The contention therefore fails at the threshold. 16. The second contention, that the objections filed by the Petitioner were not taken into consideration before publication of the final list, is equally unpersuasive. The Petitioner's own pleadings disclose that the provisional seniority list was published on 12.03.2025, that objections were invited within seven days, and that the Petitioner duly submitted his objections on 19.03.2025. The counter affidavit of the Respondent-State, however, specifically avers that after due consideration and review of all objections received, including those of the Petitioner, the Final Seniority List was published vide 2026:JHHC:15319 8 Letter No. 324 dated 22.03.2025. This averment has not been controverted by any cogent material. The mere fact that the Petitioner's objections were not accepted does not mean that they were not considered. The decision to finalize the seniority list after considering the objections falls squarely within the domain of the executive, and in the absence of any evidence of perversity or bad faith in the process of consideration, this Court cannot substitute its view for that of the authority concerned. 17. Turning to the third and principal ground urged by the Petitioner, namely that the seniority list published vide Letter No. 324 dated 22.03.2025 is erroneous and faulty as pleaded in Paragraph 29 of the writ petition; this Court finds no merit therein. The entire edifice of the Petitioner's challenge rests on the assertion that the impugned seniority list does not faithfully reflect the correct inter se seniority of the officers concerned. However, a careful examination of the record reveals an unassailable fact: the impugned seniority list maintains precisely the same inter se order of seniority as the seniority list published vide Letter No. 2408 dated 16.12.2008, which was the foundation list settled after due process. The Petitioner has not demonstrated even a single instance where the inter se order of seniority has 2026:JHHC:15319 9 been altered to his detriment as compared to what prevailed in the 2008 list which he himself endorsed. The vague assertion that the list is 'erroneous and faulty', unsupported by concrete demonstration of any specific error in the order of merit or placement, does not constitute adequate ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the petitioner’s grievance with the placement of one Hring Nath Dwivedi cannot be held to be tenable and cannot be adjudicated in this matter as the petitioner has challenged the very basis of Hring Nath Dwivedi serving in Jharkhand Cadre and has not even made the said person as a party to the instant petition. 18. Moreover, from the Counter Affidavit of the State, it is apparent that Hring Nath Dwivedi has been duly adjusted in the Jharkhand Cadre and no question arises about him being an officer of Bihar cadre. 19. This Court is also of the view that the Petitioner's challenge is rendered further untenable by reason of his own conduct. The seniority list dated 16.12.2008, which forms the basis and foundation of the impugned list, was challenged by other officers in W.P.(S) No. 811 of 2009, wherein the Petitioner was Respondent No. 4. Far from joining in that challenge, the Petitioner had, at that time, 2026:JHHC:15319 10 supported the very seniority list that he now seeks to impugn. 20. Furthermore, following the remand by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2019, the Respondent Department, after affording full opportunity to all parties including the Petitioner, passed a detailed reasoned order vide Notification No. 748 dated 21.06.2021 affirming the 2008 seniority list. The Petitioner chose not to challenge this reasoned order. He also did not object to the provisional seniority list published vide Letter No. 1261 dated 15.07.2016, which maintained the same inter se order. Indeed, the Petitioner has admittedly received promotions on the basis of the same seniority framework without ever raising any grievance. 21. The record discloses that the Petitioner was found ineligible for promotion at the DPC meeting dated 04.04.2025 on two independent grounds: (i) the pendency of departmental proceedings against him, initiated vide Memo No. 1141 dated 25.08.2023 on allegations of financial irregularity and corruption; and (ii) his failure to submit APARs for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24, which under the applicable service instructions is the personal responsibility of the officer concerned. 22. The Petitioner cannot circumvent his own 2026:JHHC:15319 11 ineligibility, flowing from his personal conduct, by seeking a revision of the seniority list. This Court cannot lend its process to such an exercise. 23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having carefully perusing the pleadings, affidavits, annexures and the documents placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 24. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Final Seniority List published vide Letter No. 324 dated 22.03.2025 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. Moreover, the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner regarding the requirement of Chief Ministerial approval, the alleged non-consideration of objections, and the alleged errors in the seniority list have all been examined and found to be without substance. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. However, no cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/05/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 22.05.2026