2026:JHHC:20645-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 839 of 2025 Surya Bhushan, S/o Late Ramakant Mandal, R/o near Ma Mansa Mandir, Telipara, Rsikpur, P.O. & P.S.-Dumka ….. Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Ranchi 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Director, Extension Forestry, Santhal Pargana, Dumka 4. The Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Santhal Pargana, Dumka 5. The Conservator of Forest, Territorial Circle, Dumka 6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I ----- 02/13.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 01.09.2025 disposing of W.P.(S) No. 4655 of 2025. 3. The appellant, by filing W.P.(S) No. 4655 of 2025, had claimed promotion to the post of Forester from the post of Forest Guard where he was working since the year 2010. The contention raised before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant was eligible to be considered for the post of Forester, but the respondents were not considering his case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Ajit Singh-II v. State of Punjab; reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209 to submit that a person, who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion, but still not considered for promotion, can complain of violation of 2026:JHHC:20645-DB 2 his fundamental rights under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned Sr. S.C.-I, defends the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. He points out that the impugned order directs that the appellant’s case should be considered for promotion with other similarly situated eligible persons falling within the zone of consideration. He, therefore, submits that the appellant can have no grievance regarding the impugned order. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We are satisfied that the appellant has made out no case to warrant interference with the impugned order dated 01.09.2025. 7. The proposition that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right can never be disputed. However, in this case, the appellant has placed nothing on record to suggest that any of his juniors or other similarly placed persons were considered for promotion, but the appellant was not. In such a case, the dictum in the case of Ajit Singh-II (supra) would have applied. 8. That dictum, in fact, holds that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Further, even promotion must be based on equal opportunity, and the seniority attached to such promotion is a facet of fundamental rights under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. 9. The appellant has not made out a case of any unequal treatment. His case is only that since, according to him, he is eligible for promotion, the State is bound to consider his case for promotion and to promote him. Based on such a premise, unaccompanied by any allegation of unequal treatment, the learned Single Judge was 2026:JHHC:20645-DB 3 right in holding that the only direction that could be given in favour of the appellant was the one contained in paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order. 10. The direction contained in paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order reads as follows: “4. Thus, no positive order in favour of the petitioner can be passed. However, if the respondents initiate process for promoting the employees to the post of Forester and if the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration, his case should be considered with the other similarly situated eligible persons.” 11. For all the above reasons, we detect no error in the learned Single Judge’s impugned order dated 01.09.2025. 12. Accordingly, we dismiss the present appeal without any order for costs. (M. S. SONAK, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 13.07.2026 Satish/Vikas/