2026:JHHC:237-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 7511 of 2025 Amit Kumar Roy, Age about 45 years, S/O late Baijnath Pandey, Vill Lakhanpur Post Lakhanpur PS Mohanpur Lakhaipur, Fatehpur, Gaya, Bihar, PIN 824232. ... ... ... ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, first floor, project building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa Ranchi. … … ... Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Ms. Nalini Jha, Advocate For the State: Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-III For the JPSC: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate --------- 04/Dated: 07.01.2026 1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- “a. For issuance of an writ/ writ(s), order/order(s), direction/ direction(s), commanding upon in the nature of of the mandamus the respondents for altering of the process of selection for post of Deputy Collector through Limited Examination, Jharkhand Service Code holding the group Kha Post only laid down in the advertisement number 11/2018 dated 25.09.2018 pertaining to the recruitment of the Deputy Collector in the state of Jharkhand. b. For issuance of a further writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions, commanding upon the Respondents to amend the part of Rule 17(ka)(ii) of Jharkhand Administrative Services Rules, 2015, whereby the government servants serving on Non gazetted sub-ordinate post as defined in Rule 30 Appendix 5 of the Jharkhand Service Code holding the Group Kha Post have only been made eligible to participate in the process of selection. 2. When the case came up for consideration on 06.01.2026, the Court passed the following orders: 2026:JHHC:237-DB -2- “1. Learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(S) No. 790 of 2019 [Chandan Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others]. He has also placed a copy of the said judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to go through the same. 3. List this case on 07.01.2026” 3. We have gone through the judgment rendered by this Court in Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Jharkhand and others [W.P(S) No. 790 of 2019 and analogous cases) and find that the advertisement impugned herein in fact has been issued in compliance to the orders passed in case of Chandan Kumar (supra) and therefore, in substance the petitioner actually seeks to challenge the judgment that was passed in the case of Chandan Kumar (supra) which is not permissible. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved then the only remedy available to him was to have assailed the judgment passed in the case of Chandan Kumar (supra) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not by way of the instant writ petition. 4. That apart even the issues raised in this petition are squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Chandan Kumar’s case (supra) wherein not only the provisions contained in Clause 17 (Ka)(ii) of the Jharkhand Administrative Services Rules, 2015 but also the Rule 30 along with Appendix 5 of the Jharkhand Service Code was considered and it is only thereafter that the petitions were disposed of with the observations made in para-36 and 37 of the judgment which reads as under:- “36. The petitioners have made emphasis on their argument that there is no classification of Category-III posts in Rule 30 of the 2026:JHHC:237-DB -3- Jharkhand Service Code but the provision of Rule 30 along with Appendix-5 has been inserted, therefore, the said rule cannot be said to be valid, since by virtue of insertion therein, the writ petitioners, who are holding category-III posts, they are also eligible. But the question would be that when the Government has come out with a resolution on 27.08.2010 classifying the posts, then what would be the effect of the description of posts shown in the tabular chart as under Appendix-5? It is evident from Appendix-5 that there is no classification based upon the pay scale or the grade pay, rather the names of the different departments have been given. The further question would be that what would be the consequence of the description of the post shown in the Appendix-5 after coming into the effect of the resolution dated 27.08.2010 classifying the posts showing therein the pay scale with the grade pay. Admittedly, Resolution No. 5216 dated 27.08.2010 has not been challenged. It appears from resolution dated 27.08.2010, which has been notified by the order of the Governor, having been notified for people in general by publishing in the gazette which contains a condition as under Condition No.3 that all the earlier classifications made, will stand superseded which means that after coming into effect of Resolution No. 5216 dated 27.08.2010, the classification of posts of category-III will only prevail and not the description of post as under Appendix-5. Further, it is evident from Appendix-5 that the same contains the list of Government service separately classed as ministerial service by giving the names of the post of different departments, however, with no pay scale and no classification in the ministerial cadre. Even if the provision of Rule 30 will be taken into consideration, the same confers power upon the State Government to specially define the other class of servants by general or special order to be under the category of ministerial servant. The resolution has come carving out the classification of posts even in the category-III by classifying in two categories, i.e., Group-ga and Group-kha having the different pay scales. It is evident from the slab of the pay scale that Group-kha service is having higher pay scale than the employees working under Group-ga, meaning thereby, the employees working under Group-kha is having more experience on the ground of rendering 2026:JHHC:237-DB -4- continuous service and is a upgraded post either to be filled up by way of promotion or through direct recruitment. 37. The Rules, 2015 has been carved out by inserting a provision under 17(ka)(ii) wherein the insertion of Group-kha posts have been made but with the reference of Rule 30 read with Appendix-5. The reference of Rule 30 has been made for the specific purpose since the said provision defines ministerial cadre while the reference of Appendix-5 has been made with the specific purpose which is in order to insert in the Appendix-5 the classification based upon the pay scale. Therefore, merely because in the impugned rule there is insertion of Rule 30 read with Appendix-5 does not entitle the writ petitioners to be considered eligible to participate in the process of selection. The reference of Rule 30 has been made since the same defines the ministerial staff. The aforesaid definition of ministerial staff is now required to be read with Appendix-5 of the Jharkhand Service Code with the Resolution No. 5216 dated 27.08.2010 by which the Category-III posts have been classified in two groups, i.e., Group-ga and Group-kha having different pay scale. The question of declaring the provision as contained under Rule 17(Ka)(ii) to be invalid, according to our considered view, will not arise, reason being that the State Government, by taking into consideration the fact that since the category-III posts have been classified in two groups on the basis of higher grade pay and the hierarchy, the Group-kha post is higher in hierarchy in comparison to that of Group-ga posts. If the State Government has taken a decision to allow such candidates, who are above in hierarchy by holding the post in Group-kha in the ministerial cadre having more experience on the basis of rendering their service and being in the higher grade pay, to participate in the process of selection to be appointed to the post of Deputy Collector under the Jharkhand Administrative Cadre, it cannot be said to be under the fold of unreasonable classification. Since the aforesaid classification is based upon a valid reason by carving out two groups in the category-III and admittedly, the employees working in Group-ga under the ministerial cadre cannot compare themselves with the employees working in the Group-kha under the ministerial cadre who admittedly are more senior, more experienced and in the higher pay scale by virtue of the hierarchy. 2026:JHHC:237-DB -5- The 25% posts is to be filled up strictly on merit by conducting Limited Competitive Examination, by appointing ministerial cadre directly to the Class-II service of the State Government. The State has taken decision to select such candidates who are having more experience by virtue of holding higher post, which cannot be said to be a wrong policy decision of the State Government since, it is the State, being the employer, is the competent body to fill up the posts with the persons having more experience of the higher post for their performance to the higher post in which they are to be directly recruited from in-service candidate to take maximum potential from them in order to maintain efficiency on the basis of such experience and holding of such posts.” 5. Thereafter, the Court directed the JPSC to notify the advertisement as per the provisions made in the statute by inviting application of such candidates who have been appointed on compassionate ground in order to consider their candidatures along with the other candidates including the writ petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 5966 of 2018 (petitioner Nos. 1 & 6), W.P.(S) No. 790 of 2019 and W.P.(S) No. 347 of 2019. 6. Since the issue in question is no longer res-integra and is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Chandan Kumar’s case (supra), the instant writ petition is clearly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 07.01.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 08.01.2026