2026:JHHC:13673 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 354 of 2022 -- Shyam Deo Prasad Singh, aged about 65 Years S/o Late Alakh Deo Singh resident of Mohalla-Harischandra Stadium Near Arvind Press, Mamta Hospital, Nawada, P.O+P.S&District- Nawada (Bihar) ..........Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at MDI Building, PO+PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Education Establishment Committee, Koderma, P.O+P.S & District- Koderma. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Koderma having office at P.O+P.S & District Koderma. 4. Block Education Extension Officer- cum- Enquiry Officer/ Conduction Officer, Satgawan, having office at P.O & P.S – Satgawan, District Koderma. .......Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K.Verma, Advocate Ms. Rajni Singh, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Binit Chandra, A.C to AAG-III -- 05/28.04.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing for quashing of Order (Annexure- 9) dated 08.07.2021 issued and signed by the Respondent authorities whereby and where under Promotion of the Petitioner from Grade II to Grade III and Grade -IV is rejected by the Respondents b) To hold and declare that the act/actions of the Respondents authorities refusing the Promotion to Petitioner from Grade II to Grade III and Grade IV is wholly illegal arbitrary and unreasonable and the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law. c) To direct the authorities to forthwith to give the promotion to petitioner from Grade-II to Grade-III and Grade-IV. 3. From the record, it appears that initially the petitioner has preferred one writ application being W.P.(S) No. 6527 of 2016, wherein he confined his prayer only for a 2026:JHHC:13673 2 direction upon the respondents to consider his representation with regard to promotion. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the department pursuant to first round of litigation; wherein a ground has been taken that since as per Primary Teacher Recruitment Rules, 1993, wherein there is a clause of satisfactory service, the petitioner was absent for 6 years 6 months and 7 days and he was not regularized; therefore, his case for promotion was rejected. For brevity, the relevant part of the order dated 09.03.2017 is extracted hereinbelow: " 1993 02 05 :- “ "- 01, 02 06 06 06 , 07 -3 -4 इ -2 -4 “ 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner again moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6289 of 2017 challenging the reasoned order, which was quashed and set aside by holding as under: “7. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since the punishment order of the petitioner has already been quashed by this Court and petitioner has been reinstated into the services with all consequential benefits, the period which he remained out of service has also be treated as the regular period of services for extending the benefits of salary and also for counting the same for the purpose of pension. The period of suspension has been held to be valid in service and as such, it cannot be said to be unsatisfactory. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-State regarding rejection of the case of the petitioner for promotion on ground of unsatisfactory service is not tenable in the eyes of law, as the services of the petitioner can said to be fit in view of the quashment of the punishment order and also in view of the fact that the period of absence has been treated as period spent on duty and the entire salary has been paid and it has also been considered for the purpose of granting the pension. 2026:JHHC:13673 3 8. Since there is no break in service and the period between 24.06.2010 to 31.10.2013 has been treated as continuous service by the respondents themselves, there was no occasion to withhold the promotion on account of break in service.” 5. After going through the aforesaid order passed by the writ court in the second round of litigation, it is evident that the writ court held that there is no vacant service and further categorically held that “.........the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent-State regarding rejection of case of the petitioner for promotion on the ground of unsatisfactory service is not tenable in the eye of law, as the services of the petitioner can said to be fit in view of quashment of the impugned order......” 6. Thus, it is evident that the writ court in unequivocal term has held that the ground of unsatisfactory service is not tenable. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the State has not challenged this order and again pursuant to the order passed by the writ court in second round of litigation; almost same and similar ground has been taken to reject the claim of the petitioner. For brevity, the relevant part of the order dated 08.07.2021 is extracted hereinbelow: “ – - 1. , ब ० 0 ० 420/406/409/34 38/2017 , ० ० 696/2017 2026:JHHC:13673 4 2. 10.03.2007 29.09.2007 6 19 27.03.2009 07.06.2009 -2 12 3. W.P. (S) 324/2020 ब 4. 01.06.2004 31.12.2016 5. 1993 “ 7. So far as ground no. 1 is concerned, it appears that there is a pendency of G.R. Case No. 696 of 2017. It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.2016; as such, this ground is not tenable as per the petitioner because the G.R. case is of the subsequent period i.e. after his retirement. Further, bifurcation of period has been given in Sl. Nos. 2. So far as ground no. 2 is concerned, it appears that there is a reference of 6 months 19 days, but in the previous impugned order, though the file was with the respondents, this period was not taken into consideration; Therefore, the respondents deliberately in order to defeat justice has taken this ground. So far as ground no. 3 is concerned, W.P.(S) no. 324 of 2020 was not concerned with promotion; rather the same was with regard to gratuity. 2026:JHHC:13673 5 So far as ground no. 4 is concerned that the service of the petitioner has not been verified; it seems to be misplaced in view of the fact that the petitioner has received each and every retiral dues including gratuity and it was only when the department gave the gratuity, petitioner withdrew W.P.(S) No. 324 of 2020. So far as ground no. 5 is concerned i.e. the service of the petitioner has not been satisfactory; it is evident that the same is against the specific finding by the Coordinate Bench of this court in para 7 in last round of litigation. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 08.07.2021, is hereby, quashed and set aside. This court is not interested in remitting the case to pass a fresh case again because the petitioner has already retired and there cannot be any unlimited innings for the respondents. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. The petitioner shall be deemed to be promoted from the date the juniors were granted promotion and subsequently the entire consequential benefits should be extended to him and thereafter necessary authority letter be issued to the Accountant General Office for re-fixation of pension since the petitioner has already retired. 2026:JHHC:13673 6 The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 28th April, 2026 Jk Uploaded on 29/05/2026 AFR