2026:JHHC:13600 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1336 of 2025 Manratan Baraik, Son of Niranjan Baraik, aged about 55 years, Resident of Gotidih, Jonaha Sikidri, P.O. & P.S. Sikidri, District Ranchi-Jharkhand. …Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Jharkhand, having its office at Deputy Para, Ahirtoli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kutchery, District Ranchi. 4. Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Jharkhand, having its office at Deputy Para, Ahirtoli, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kutchery, District Ranchi …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Zaid Imam, A.C. to S.C.-VII Order No. 06/18.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- a. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the order dated 21.11.2024 contained in Letter no. 05/06/2024-885 (Anexure-12) issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that the petitioner is not having proper educational qualification and the matriculation certificate obtained by the petitioner from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad is not valid; as the same is illegal and arbitrary. b. For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(S) to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner in the sanctioned post of ‘Driver’ in the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Jharkhand at Ranchi. 2026:JHHC:13600 2 c. For issuance of such other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may think just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed as a ‘Driver’ in the office of Commercial Tax Department on daily wage basis vide memo no. 228 dated 24.02.2001 and is still working. The petitioner is having valid driving license. The Jharkhand Drivers (Appointment & Service Condition) Rules 2006 was enacted on 15.02.2007 as per which the minimum qualification for the appointment at the post of driver was Matriculation. The petitioner completed his matriculation from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad in the year 2018. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that there is a sanctioned vacant post available and the services of the petitioner is being taken for the last 24 (twenty-four) years. The petitioner wrote several representations to the respondents for regularization of his services; however, no action was taken by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1782 of 2023 for a direction upon the respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner. The said writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1782 of 2023 was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2024, directing the petitioner to give a detailed representation and the respondent no. 4 was directed to pass a reasoned order. 5. Thereafter, pursuant to the representation dated 11.03.2024, the respondent no. 3 directed the petitioner to appear before him on 24.10.2024 along with all the documents. Thereafter, order dated 21.11.2024 was passed by the respondent no. 3 wherein the claim of the 2026:JHHC:13600 3 petitioner for regularization was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has produced the matriculation certificate obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad which is not valid. 6. The Petitioner has enclosed a letter bearing no. JAC/2008/08 dated 28.08.2008 as Annexure-13 to the writ petition as per which Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi had given recognition to the certificates issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad. 7. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3 and 4, wherein it has been stated that on the date of consideration of application of the petitioner for regularization, the Jharkhand Drivers (Appointment & Service Condition) Rules 2006 was in effect and therefore the minimum required qualification was Matriculation. It has been further stated that the petitioner has obtained matriculation certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad on 30.01.2018 which is not valid as per letter contained in memo no. 6897 dated 16.09.2019 issued by Secretary, Secondary Education Board, Uttar Pradesh. 8. The further case of the respondents is that as per Clause 3(A)(ii) of the Notification No. 1348 dated 13.02.2015, the employee should have/possess the minimum requisite qualification for the post for being considered for regularization. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed at the post of Driver in Commercial Tax Tribunal in the year 2001 and has continued in service for the last 25 years. It has been 2026:JHHC:13600 4 further submitted that there is a vacant sanctioned post of driver in the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ranchi. Ld. counsel has submitted that on the date of appointment of the petitioner in 2001, the petitioner possessed all the requisite qualification and therefore the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. 10. It has been further submitted that the petitioner completed his matriculation from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad in the year 2018 and the same was recognized by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi vide letter bearing no. JAC/2008/08 dated 28.08.2008. Further, the letter contained in memo no. 6897 dated 16.09.2019 issued by Secretary, Secondary Education Board, Uttar Pradesh cannot be given a retrospective effect. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Jagoo v. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 and Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Union of India through Ministry of Consumer Affairs v. Jairaj Singh Writ-A No. 104 of 2025 and submits that the petitioner should be granted regularization and all consequential benefits from the date when he completed the 10 (ten) years in service. 11. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification i.e., matriculation as per the Jharkhand Drivers (Appointment & Service Condition) Rules 2006 and the matriculation certificate obtained from 2026:JHHC:13600 5 Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad on 30.01.2018 is not valid as per letter contained in memo no. 6897 dated 16.09.2019 issued by Secretary, Secondary Education Board, Uttar Pradesh. 12. Having gone through the records of the case and hearing the parties, it is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner was working at the post of Driver in the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ranchi on daily wages since 24th of February 2001 and is still working. There is a sanctioned vacant post of Driver in the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ranchi. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India (Supra) dealt with the issue of illegal and irregular appointment. Para 20 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular”, and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over time, transform what was initially ad hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed by a regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee…….” 13. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be “illegal” as the petitioner possessed all the requisite qualification for being appointed at the post of Driver. The contention of the respondent that the minimum required qualification for the post of Driver was matriculation cannot be accepted as the Jharkhand Drivers (Appointment & Service Condition) Rules 2006 by which matriculation was said to be the minimum qualification was enacted only on 2026:JHHC:13600 6 15.02.2007, and the petitioner was appointed on the post of driver on 24th of February 2001, on which date the petitioner was having all the required qualification, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner can in no way be said to be illegal. 14. Even thereafter, the petitioner completed his matriculation from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad in the year 2018. The contention of the respondents that the certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan is not recognized in light of notification dated 16.09.2019, is not legally tenable, inasmuch as, such notification was not retrospectively applicable. The fact remains that on the date when the petitioner obtained matriculation certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan Allahabad, the same was legally recognized by the respondent. Reference is made to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 3115 of 2015, wherein a similar issue fell for consideration with respect to certificates issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, the institution was derecognized in 2014 by the State of Jharkhand. The Division Bench held that such derecognition will not vitiate the certificates issued prior to the date of notification of derecognition. 15. Furthermore, the records reveal that the certificate of Hindi Sahitya Sammellan was recognized by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi vide letter bearing no. JAC/2008/08 dated 28.08.2008. 16. On perusal of the record it is further evident that the nature of the work which the petitioner is performing is perennial in nature and that is 2026:JHHC:13600 7 the reason, the petitioner has been allowed to continue in service even as on today which shows that the services required are perennial in nature. 17. Thus, in light of the aforesaid fact and circumstances, the order dated 21.11.2024 contained in Letter no. 05/06/2024-885 (Anexure-12), issued by the respondent no. 3; wherein claim of petitioner for regularization has been rejected, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 18. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 25.02.2011 i.e., the date on which the petitioner completed 10 (ten) years of service at the post of driver in Commercial Tax Tribunal, Ranchi within a period of 6 (Six) weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Upon, regularization, the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits from the date of regularization, within a period of 10 (ten) weeks thereafter. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:18.04.2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 08.05.2026