2026:JHHC:15355 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3295 of 2025 ….….. 1. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, aged about 51 years, son of Bharat Kumar Singh, resident of Ward No.17, Deosang, Bampas Town, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) 2. Arvind Kumar Lal, aged about 56 years, son of Mahabir Das, resident of 496-C, Ashok Nagar Colony, Doranda, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. Bhagirath Prasad, aged about 59 years, son of Ram Adhar Yadav, resident of Flat No.D/8, Bhuneshwari Lok Apartment, 78/A Kalimandir Road, Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. Sanjay Pandey, aged about 55 years, son of Late Raghu Nandan Pandey, resident of Line Villa, R N Bose Road, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand) 5. Raj Maheshwaram, aged about 52 years, son of Maheshwaram Prasad Singh, resident of Garden Green Saket Vihar, Circular Road, P.O. & P.S.- Deoghar, District-Deoghar (Jharkhand) 6. Ajay Singh Baraik, aged about 50 years, son of Jay Mangal Baraik, resident of Ghaghra, Kugaon, P.O. & P.S.-Ghaghra, District-Gumla (Jharkhand) 7. Yogendra Prasad, aged about 55 years, son of Amrit Ram, Jainagar, P.O. & P.S.-Jainagar, District-Koderma (Jharkhand) 8. Md. Ziyaul Ansari, aged about 46 years, son of Late Abdul Rajak Ansari, resident of Gramin Path, Near Masjid, Village-Sarouni Bazar, P.O.-Sarouni Bazaar, P.S.-Godda, District-Godda (Jharkhand) 9. Dinesh Kumar Ranjan, aged about 44 years, son of Govind Mahto, resident of Mahabir Colony, Lowadih, near Lowadih Chowk, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 10. Premlata Murmu, aged about 47 years, W/o Doctor Sudhir Kumar Hembrom, resident of Mongla 2026:JHHC:15355 2 Bandh, P.O.-Mongla Bandh, P.S.-Pakuria, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) 11. Pankaj Kumar Shaw, aged about 46 years, son of Bhuneshwar Prasad Shah, resident of House No.130, Old AG Colony, Kadru, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 12. Binay Manish R. Lakra, aged about 54 years, son of Marcus Lakra, resident of Lalpur, Peace Road, By Lane, Church Lane, P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand). …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, 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 Project Building, 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. J.F. Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, A.C. to G.A.-V ….….. C.A.V. ON: 18/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ application has been filed with a prayer to consider the case of the petitioners, for promotion from the post of ADM (Additional Collector) and equivalent rank (grade-pay of Rs.7600 and revised pay-scale - Level-12) to the post of Joint Secretary and equivalent rank (grade-pay of Rs.8700, revised pay-scale - Level-13). Further, the petitioners have also prayed for grant of 2026:JHHC:15355 3 all consequential benefits to the petitioners upon being promoted to the post of Joint Secretary and equivalent rank. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed in the first batch of JPSC, in connection to advertisement no. 11 of 2002-03 of the JPSC. Later, the recruitment process came under the scanner of investigation by the CBI, and subsequently CBI case no. RC-05(A)/2012, AHD R was filed on 05.07.2012. Thereafter, the CBI submitted charge-sheet but the petitioners were given clean chit. Despite the fact that they were not charge-sheeted, the CBI Court took cognizance of the matter vide order dated 16.01.2025. However, some other candidates including juniors to the petitioners who are also implicated in the criminal case were considered for promotion on 22.03.2025 to the post of Joint Secretary. 4. The case of the petitioners are that that they have not been granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary, though they have already become eligible for this promotion, way back in the year 2023 itself and vacancy was available. In this regard, the petitioners represented before the respondent authorities, but all in vain. Hence, this writ application. 2026:JHHC:15355 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted that in the said criminal case there is no prima facie evidence that the appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with law and the doubt raised therein that their selection was done beyond the permissible limit in the preliminary examination has already been allowed by this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Tirkey v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2005) 1 JLJR 275. 6. It has further been submitted that the case of the petitioners for promotion has not been considered even when the juniors have been considered and even granted promotion vide notification issued in the month of March, 2025. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the DPC held on 12.03.2025, it was decided to keep the recommendations in sealed cover for only those officers against whom charge sheets have been filed and cognizance has been taken. However, with regard to the issue that summons has been issued by the court without filing of a charge sheet; a decision was taken to obtain legal opinion from the learned Advocate General to determine the appropriate course of action regarding their promotion. Due to this outcome, the promotion of the petitioners was 2026:JHHC:15355 5 not considered, inasmuch as, Departmental Resolution No. 6227 dated 20.11.2008 does not explicitly clarify the course of action in cases where charge-sheet have not been filed but cognizance has been taken and summons also issued. 8. It has further been submitted that with regard to the candidates namely Pranab Kumar Paul and Rakesh Kumar; neither a charge sheet had been filed, nor any summons were issued against them; hence, the DPC recommended their name for promotion. 9. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials available on record, it transpires that the case of the petitioners is that though the petitioners have already become eligible for promotion, way back in the year 2023 itself and vacancy was available, they have not been granted promotion to the post of Joint Secretary. 10. As far as the process of promotion is concerned; there are two stages, at which, the case of the candidate is to be considered. The first stage is when the candidate is to be found eligible, and the second stage is when the merit of the suitable/eligible candidate is considered. 11. The petitioners have made out a case that they had already become eligible for the purpose of promotion to 2026:JHHC:15355 6 the post of Joint Secretary from the post of Additional Collector, way back in the year 2023 itself. As far as their meritocracy is concerned; it has been disclosed at para- 14 & 15 of the writ application, that their ACR and other career credentials are up to the mark and they have not faced any departmental proceeding in their service career. 12. The next area that is to be seen in the matter of promotion is availability of vacancies. It seems that the vacancies on Joint Secretary were available in the year 2023, but for some reason or the other, there was delay on part of the Respondents in consideration of the case of the petitioners for promotion. 13. However, from the records, it appears that one criminal case was lodged in which the petitioners were not named at the time of institution of F.I.R., and it was lodged in the year 2012 itself. But, after more than 10 years of investigation, no charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners. Further, it appears that although the charge-sheet was submitted against other persons on 01.05.2024, but the petitioners were not charge-sheeted. However, despite of the fact that no charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners, the cognizance was taken by the learned Criminal Court on 16.01.2025, and 2026:JHHC:15355 7 therefore, the criminal case is now pending against the petitioners. 14. Now, the fact to be taken into account is that prior to the taking of cognizance, there was no criminal case pending against the petitioners. It was for the first time i.e. on 16.01.2025, cognizance was taken against them, and that too, when they were not charge-sheeted officers and these allegations relate back to the appointment process of the third combined JPSC examination. 15. Thus, in view of the above facts and circumstances, two-fold question arises, firstly, when the petitioners were eligible in the year 2023, and vacancies were also in hand, then why the case of promotion was delayed, as back in the year 2023, when there was no criminal case pending. 16. It appears that the list of witnesses and evidences that have been enclosed with the charge-sheet, are long and tremendous, and therefore, the criminal trial will go on for longer period of time, which would certainly cause prejudice to the petitioners. If the grievance of the petitioners is seen as a whole; it would not be out of place to mention that the petitioners are suitable and eligible, and they should not suffer due to the long pendency of case. The fact of this case fits squarely 2026:JHHC:15355 8 covered with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal1, wherein, at para 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed promotion to the employees under somewhat similar facts and circumstances. 17. Per contra, the above-mentioned factual position has not been controverted by the respondent-State. Further, they have not controverted the position that the petitioners lack in merit. The only hurdle that is coming in non-consideration of the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary is the pendency of the criminal case, in which cognizance was taken on 16.01.2025, insofar as, it has not been controverted that the petitioners were suitable and eligible prior to the year 2025 and vacancies were also in hand. 18. At this stage, this Court proceeds to examine the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that their case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in W.P.(S) No.3328 of 2025. 19. On perusal of the said judgment and facts recorded therein, it is without doubt that the facts of the present case are same and similar to the facts of W.P.(S) No. 3328 of 2025, that was preferred by the similarly placed 1 1995 (2) SCC 570 2026:JHHC:15355 9 candidates, who were also aggrieved by the same identical cause of action, and had prayed for same reliefs. The case of the petitioners also deserves the same relief as has been granted to the petitioners of that case and therefore, the relief portion of W.P.(S) No. 3328 of 2025 is being reproduced herein below:- “25. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the instant matter, this Court issue the following directions to the respondent State Government: a. To recalculate the number of vacancies as existing on 22.12.2023 and all the anticipated vacancies created after 22.12.2023 up-till 2024 by taking into account the facts stated hereinabove. b. To consider the case of the petitioners as well as all the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary as on 22.12.2023 or any of them for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary and equivalent posts against the recalculated vacancies as per para (a) and accordingly, to prepare a panel in accordance with para 5 of the resolution dated 07.11.2003. c. If the petitioners as well as all the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary as on 22.12.2023 or any of them are found fit/suitable/eligible for promotion to the higher post of Joint Secretary prior to filing of the charge-sheet against them, then the State Government shall promote and post them against the recalculated vacancies along with all consequential benefits. d. The entire exercise shall be undertaken by the State Government before convening of the next DPC or within 6 weeks whichever is earlier.” 20. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and considering the fact that the petitioners had already become eligible for promotion in the year 2023, when no criminal proceeding was pending against them, coupled with the admitted position that vacancies were available at the relevant point of time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the present petitioners stands on identical footing to that of the 2026:JHHC:15355 10 petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3328 of 2025. 21. Accordingly, the respondent-State is directed to extend the same benefits and consideration to the present petitioners, in the same manner and on the same terms, as directed in paragraph-25 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the judgment passed in W.P.(S) No. 3328 of 2025, considering the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary and equivalent post and thereafter, the consequential benefits shall also follow. 22. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 23. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15 /05/2026 Amardeep/ N.A.F.R Uploaded on 27.05.2026