2026:JHHC:15356 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5645 of 2025 ….….. 1. Praveen Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Bhim Prasad, resident of Village-Dindayalpur, P.O. Dindayalpur, P.S. G.B. Nagar (Tarawara) District-Siwan (Bihar). 2. Pradeep Sah, aged about 40 years, son of Garavu Sah, resident of village-Kendua, P.O. Barmasiya, P.S. Pathargama, District-Godda (Jharkhand). 3. Dharmendra Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, son of Suraj Nath Mahto, resident of village Chokad, P.O. Maganpur, P.S. Gola, District-Ramgarh (Jharkhand). …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 2. The Secretary Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 5. Sri Alok Kumar, being Sl. No. 886 in the gradation list, son of not known to the petitioners, presently serving on the post of Assistant Engineer, Chief Engineer Office, Building Construction Department, Line Tank Road, Kutchery, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 6. Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, being Sl. No. 887 in the gradation list, son of not known to the petitioners, presently serving on the post of Assistant Engineer, Urban Development, Project Bhawan, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 7. Sri Sanjay Prasad, being Sl.No. 888 in the gradation list, son of not known to the petitioners, presently serving on the post of Assistant Engineer (Anusharwan), Chief Engineers Office, (Communication), Golchakkar, HEC, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Resp.-State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S.C.-I Mr. Mihir Kumar Ekka, A.C. to S.C.-I For the Resp.-JPSC: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sharan Toppo, Advocate ….….. 2026:JHHC:15356 C.A.V. ON: 28/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying, inter alia, for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioners from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer with all consequential benefits, notionally w.e.f. 22.03.2023, in the same manner as similarly situated employees were granted promotion pursuant to Notification dated 01.08.2025. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings, are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Junior Engineer under the Road Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand and are presently working as such. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they were also parties in an earlier writ being W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2024 directing the respondents to reconsider the promotional exercise from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer in the light of the principles laid down therein. Pursuant thereto, several similarly situated employees were granted promotion vide Notification dated 01.08.2025 with notional effect from 22.03.2023; however, the case of the present petitioners was not considered, though according to them they stand on identical footing. Aggrieved thereof, the 2026:JHHC:15356 present writ application has been preferred. 5. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023, the respondents undertook a fresh exercise for adjustment and promotion of Junior Engineers possessing AMIE qualification by shifting certain candidates from the AMIE quota to the Diploma quota and by creating shadow posts for accommodating excess candidates. He has also submitted that though the said exercise was extended to other similarly situated employees, who were also parties in the earlier writ petition, the petitioners alone have been excluded from the benefit of such consideration. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have practiced pick and choose in shifting only 11 persons from AMIE quota to Diploma quota; whereas there were 43 candidates who were promoted to Assistant Engineer through AMIE quota-unreserved. He has also submitted that as far as the non-availability of vacancy in the Diploma Category is concerned; they have already created more than 10 shadow posts, then the same process could have been applied for shifting seniority position no. 886, 887 and 888 of the AMIE quota to Diploma quota. In that eventuality, 3 additional vacancies would be unfilled in the AMIE Quota of the Assistant Engineer, against which the petitioners can be 2026:JHHC:15356 promoted in the same manner as other employees of W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023 have been promoted. 7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents have stated that as per the judgment dated 19.12.2024 passed by this Court, against the available vacancy, firstly 28% Diploma quota and then 10% AMIE/equivalent quota were to be considered for promotion. Thus, the direction was complied, and on complying the judgment dated 19.12.2024 a total of 15 (UR-11, ST-04) engineers of AMIE quota was to be shifted to Diploma quota. Accordingly, promotion was considered on 11 posts in UR category of the Diploma quota against the total 15 vacancies arising in AMIE quota; whereas against the remaining 04 posts of ST category, due to non-availability of engineers of relevant category in AMIE quota, as per the provision mentioned in Clause- ख of departmental resolution no. 4377 dated 01.09.2009, engineers of relevant category of Diploma quota were considered for promotion. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the present petitioners were also parties in W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 19.12.2024 directing the respondents to reconsider the promotional exercise in the manner indicated therein. It further appears that while disposing of the said writ 2026:JHHC:15356 petition, this Court had specifically observed that the seats in the Diploma/open category quota were vacant and therefore no prejudice would be caused if the eligible petitioners therein were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. 9. From the records, it further transpires that in the original promotional exercise undertaken vide Notification dated 22.03.2023, promotions were granted from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer under different promotional channels, wherein 43 candidates were promoted under the 10% AMIE quota in the unreserved category, whereas promotions under the 28% Diploma/open category quota were also made on the basis of inter se seniority. 10. The main grievance raised in W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023 was that certain Junior Engineers possessing AMIE qualification, though otherwise eligible for consideration in the 28% Diploma/open category quota on the basis of their seniority, were adjusted against the 10% AMIE quota, thereby reducing the available vacancies for other eligible AMIE degree holder candidates. 11. This Court, while deciding the earlier writ petition, held that candidates possessing AMIE qualification were first required to be considered against the 28% open category quota and only thereafter against the 10% AMIE quota. 2026:JHHC:15356 12. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondents admittedly undertook a fresh restructuring exercise. From the statements made in the counter affidavit as also from Annexure-10 to the writ petition, it clearly appears that in compliance of the judgment dated 19.12.2024, a total of 15 engineers of AMIE quota, viz., 11 from UR category and 04 from ST category, were proposed to be shifted to the Diploma/open category quota. As a consequence, thereof, 15 vacancies were to arise in the AMIE quota, out of which 11 vacancies in the UR category were utilized for promotion of other eligible Junior Engineers possessing AMIE qualification. 13. It further appears from the records that while implementing the aforesaid exercise, the respondents themselves realized that upon shifting of 11 AMIE candidates to the Diploma quota, 11 Assistant Engineers promoted under the Diploma quota would become excess. The records further reveal that such excess Assistant Engineers comprised UR-5, ST-3 and SC-3 category candidates. It also appears from Annexure-10 that despite such situation, the respondents consciously decided to protect and continue the promotions of those excess Assistant Engineers by creation of shadow posts in the concerned categories, inasmuch as, it has been directed in the previous writ that the further promotional exercise shall not prejudice the already promoted candidates. 2026:JHHC:15356 14. The aforesaid facts assume significance for the reason that the main contention now taken by the respondents is that no vacancy remained available for consideration of the present petitioners either in the Diploma quota or in the AMIE quota as there was only 34 posts vacant out of a total of 123 posts in the UR category of Diploma quota, and for the rest categories, ST and SC, there were zero posts. 15. The respondents in paragraph-15 of the counter affidavit have themselves disclosed that under the Diploma quota in UR category, the last promoted candidate was bearing seniority no.879; whereas respondent nos.5, 6 and 7, having seniority nos.886, 887 and 888 respectively, continued to remain adjusted under the AMIE quota on the ground that no vacancy remained available under the UR category under Diploma quota. 16. However, from the materials available on record, it is evident that while implementing the earlier judgment, the respondents had already gone beyond the actual vacancy position by adopting the mechanism of adjustment through creation of shadow posts to be considered as supernumerary posts till the service of those shifted candidates. 17. Once such mechanism had already been adopted by the respondents for accommodating similarly situated employees arising out of the same promotional process; there appears no 2026:JHHC:15356 reasonable basis for denying similar consideration in the case of the present petitioners. 18. In such circumstances, exclusion of the present petitioners from the benefit of similar consideration, despite their participation in the earlier round of litigation and despite application of the same methodology for others, cannot be sustained. 19. It is well settled that similarly situated employees are required to be treated alike and the State authorities are expected to maintain uniformity and fairness in matters relating to promotion. 20. In this context, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India1, wherein the scope of Article 14 and class legislation has been discussed, and the relevant para are quoted hereinbelow: “10. The scope, content and meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution has been the subject-matter of intensive examination by this Court in a catena of decisions. It would, therefore, be merely adding to the length of this judgment to recapitulate all those decisions and it is better to avoid that exercise save and except referring to the latest decision on the subject in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 2 SCR 621] from which the following observation may be extracted: (SCC pp. 283-84, para 7) “[W]hat is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this article? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits.... Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well 1 (1983) 1 SCC 305 2026:JHHC:15356 as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence....” 11. The decisions clearly lay down that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled viz. (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group; and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the statute in question (see Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar [AIR 1958 SC 538 : 1959 SCR 279, 296 : 1959 SCJ 147] ). The classification may be founded on differential basis according to objects sought to be achieved but what is implicit in it is that there ought to be a nexus i.e. causal connection between the basis of classification and object of the statute under consideration. It is equally well settled by the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.” 21. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court2, while dealing with principles of fairness and legitimate expectation in administrative action, has observed as follows: “24. The principle of fairness in action requires that public authorities be held accountable for their representations. Good administration requires public authorities to act in a predictable manner and honour the promises made or practices established unless there is good reason not to do so. 25. Candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection will be fair and non-arbitrary. The basis of doctrine of legitimate expectation in public law is founded on the principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in government dealings with individuals. It recognises that a public authority's promise or past conduct will give rise to a legitimate expectation. This doctrine is premised on the notion that public authorities, while performing their public duties, ought to honour their promises or past practices. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law, custom, or established procedure. 26. However, the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not impede or hinder the power of the public authorities to lay down a policy or withdraw it. The public authority has the discretion to exercise the full range of choices available within its executive power. The public authority often has to take into consideration diverse factors, concerns, and interests before arriving at a particular policy decision. The courts are generally cautious in interfering with a bona fide decision of public authorities which denies legitimate expectation provided such a decision is taken in the larger public interest. Thus, public interest serves as a limitation on the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.” 22. As far as the contention of the respondents in view of applicability of departmental Resolution No.4377 dated 01.09.2009 is concerned; due to which 04 candidates of ST category, out of those 15 proposed candidates to be shifted, 2 (2025) 2 SCC 1 2026:JHHC:15356 have been retained in the AMIE quota itself due to non- availability of engineers of relevant category in the AMIE quota; this Court finds that when a specific direction was already passed in the earlier round of litigation being W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023 that while undertaking the promotional exercise, the candidates possessing AMIE qualification were first required to be considered against the 28% Diploma/open category quota and only thereafter against the 10% AMIE quota, and as such, if the candidates who were promoted in the Diploma quota goes up-till seniority position 894, then the list should also include the promotions, in the same category, of senior persons. This has been totally missed out, that the candidates bearing seniority position 886, 887 & 888 have not been promoted in the Diploma quota, though they are seniors to the seniority position no. 894 in the Diploma quota. Since in the Diploma quota promotions are made on the basis of seniority, then if seniority position no. 894 gets a place in the Diploma quota by creation of shadow post, then clearly the seniors should also be adjusted in the same list, being seniority position no. 886, 887 & 888. 23. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the present petitioners also deserves reconsideration in the same manner in which similarly 2026:JHHC:15356 situated employees pursuant to W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023 were considered and granted promotion vide Notification dated 01.08.2025. 24. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, the respondents are directed to shift the seniority position no. 886, 887 & 888 from AMIE quota to Diploma quota, the seats of AMIE quota, thereafter, which are unfilled, shall be taken to consider the case of the petitioners and if they are otherwise eligible and qualify the selection process, the promotion should be granted to them. 25. The entire exercise should be conducted in the same manner as has been done for the other candidates of W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2023, as it has been noted that they have been granted promotion, vide notification dated 01.08.2025, applicable w.e.f. 22.03.2023. 26. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 27. Hence, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/05/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 27.5.2026