RADHA MOHAN SHARMA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND THR THE PR SECRETARY/SECRETARY, HIGHER, TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILL DEVP DEPT
LPA/194/2026 · 2026-07-07
Rajesh Shankar
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19327 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19327 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
(2026: JHHC:19935-DB)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 194 of 2026 Radha Mohan Sharma, S/o. Ram Kirit Sharma, aged about 70 years, resident of Bank Colony, UGC, Road No. 1 Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Saraikella-Kharsawan.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
2. The Director, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
… ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------ For the Appellant : Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Md Shahabuddin, SC-VII
----- 02 /Dated: 07.07.2026
1. Heard Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha for the appellant and Md Shahabuddin, learned SC-VII for the respondents.
2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 09.02.2025 dismissing the appellant’s W.P.(S) No. 2714 of 2017.
3. The appellant virtually seeks to be treated as a Registrar-cum- Accountant from 1991, if not from 1986, under the Bihar Private Engineering Colleges (Taking Over) Ordinance, 1986, which was followed by the Bihar Private Engineering Colleges (Taking Over) Act, 1991. The record shows that under the Ordinance and the Act, the Petitioner, who was an employee of a private institution, was absorbed as a Clerk on an ad hoc basis in 1986 and has retired as a Clerk with effect from 31.10.2018.
4. Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha submits that there are several employees whose services were absorbed under the 1986 Ordinance and the Act, who, though similarly placed as the Petitioner, were absorbed in higher posts such
(2026: JHHC:19935-DB)
2
as Registrar. Therefore, he submitted that this was a case of hostile discrimination against the appellant. He submitted that since this issue has not been sufficiently considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
order, the same warrants interference. 5. Mr Shahabuddin defended the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein and submitted that this appeal may be dismissed. 6. In this case, the records show that the appellant's services were indeed absorbed under the Ordinance of 1986 and the Act of 1991, but this absorption was as a Clerk, not as a Registrar. 7. The appellant, by claiming that he had necessary qualifications and experience to be absorbed as a Registrar, instituted CWJC No. 1852 of 1991 before the Patna High Court. This was partly allowed with directions to the Additional Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, to take a decision on the appellants’ contention after verifying whether the appellant’s contention that he had the necessary qualifications and experience to be absorbed as a Registrar. 8. By Decision Memo No. 795 dated 21.10.2000, the Additional Secretary rejected the appellant’s contention that he possessed the requisite qualifications and experience. However, the appellant’s services were confirmed to the post of Clerk in accordance with the recommendation of the Screening Committee’s report dated 11.10.1988. Based on these circumstances, the appellant was transferred and posted as a Clerk at the Government Polytechnic at Adityapur. 9. The appellant, aggrieved by the decision Memo dated 21.10.2000, filed W.P.(S) No. 5945 of 2004. After arguing this matter for a considerable length, the appellant withdrew this petition with liberty to move the Department of
(2026: JHHC:19935-DB)
3
Science and Technology, State of Jharkhand to grant relaxation in the matter of experience for the post of Registrar, if so required, in accordance with law. 10. This Court’s order dated 18.06.2012, allowing the appellant to withdraw W.P.(S) No. 5945 of 2004 with liberty is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -
“Learned senior advocate, Mr. M. Sohail Anwar assisted by Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed appearing for the petitioner, after arguing at length, seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to move the Department of Science and Technology, State of Jharkhand to grant relaxation in the matter of experience for the post of Registrar, if so required, in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be understood to mean to grant relaxation, even if law does not permit so.”
11.
Pursuant to the liberty granted, the appellant did approach the Additional Secretary for relaxation. However, no relaxation order has been produced. Mr Sinha now submits that in 1991 itself, the appellant had the requisite experience of five years. 12. The above submission does not appear to have been made before the learned Single Judge. However, even assuming that this is correct, we fail to understand why the appellant withdrew W.P.(S) No. 5945 of 2004 with liberty to move the Department to grant relaxation in the matter of experience for the post of Registrar. 13. The fact that the appellant withdrew W.P.(S) No. 5945 of 2004 with liberty to seek relaxation in the matter of experience shows that the appellant was aware that he did not have the requisite experience and therefore, a relaxation in the matter of experience was necessary. At this belated stage, and in the absence of any credible material, therefore, the appellant cannot be
(2026: JHHC:19935-DB)
4
heard to say that he always had the requisite experience prescribed for the post of Registrar. 14. During the pendency of W.P.(S) No. 2714 of 2017, the Promotion Committee, on 06.09.2021, decided that the appellant’s claim for absorption to the post of Registrar-cum-Accountant cannot be considered. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 09.02.2016, has considered the
arguments against this decision dated 06.09.2021 and correctly held that the appellant cannot claim absorption against the post of Registrar-cum- Accountant without possessing the requisite qualifications and experience.
15. Thus, in this case, the appellant’s claim for absorption as Registrar-cum- Accountant stood virtually rejected by this Court’s order dated 18.06.2012 in W.P.(S) No. 5945 of 2004. Only a liberty was granted to the appellant to seek relaxation from the Government on the matter of experience. No such relaxation has been granted. In fact, the same has been rejected.
16. Accordingly, the appellant cannot still insist that he should have been absorbed as a Registrar-cum-Accountant in 1986 or 1991, and now, after his superannuation as a Clerk in 2018, the appellant should still be treated as a Registrar-cum-Accountant and paid his retiral benefits on such a hypothetical premise.
17. The arguments above, that the employees absorbed, along with the appellant having obtained benefits, appear to be neither supported by any pleadings nor by particulars. No such argument appears to have been raised before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2714 of 2017. Based on some affidavits belatedly filed at the appellate stage, such a plea cannot be pressed. Even the affidavits and the documents accompanying them make out no case of hostile discrimination.
(2026: JHHC:19935-DB)
5
18. In any event, even if it is assumed that some employees received benefits despite lacking the requisite qualifications or experience, surely such benefits could be said to have been obtained illegally, and the appellant cannot claim any equality of illegalities. We say all this even though the appellant has provided no details whatsoever of any employees who allegedly received such benefits, whether legally or illegally. Our observations are only to answer the vague contention today raised before us about the appellant being discriminated against.
19. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that there is no error in the impugned order that warrants interference in this appeal.
20. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without any
order for costs.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 07, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 08.07.2026