Jharkhand High Court

Rajeev Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 March, 2024

Author:
Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench:
Gautam Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2189 of 2023
------

1. Rajeev Kumar Sinha

2. Atul Bhardwaj

3. Satyadeo Kumar Singh

4. Ashish Kumar Napit

5. Rajeev Kumar

6. Md. Sayeed Akhtar

7. Jitendra Kumar Singh .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.

4. Secretary, Department of Labour, Employment, Training and Skill
Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

5. Director, Employment and Training, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.

6. Bijay Bedia .... .... .... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 3012 of 2022
Anil Kumar .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.

4. The Chairman, Departmental Promotion Committee cum Development
Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

5. Pankaj Kumar

6. Chandan Kumar

7. Prem Soren

8. Sanjay Kumar Toppo

9. Praveen Ujjawal Tirkey
.... .... .... Respondents
WITH

W.P.(S) No. 3216 of 2022

1. Paritosh Ashish

2. Gaurav Kumar

3. Ramesh Kumar

4. Prashant Priyadarshi

5. Shailesh Prasad Singh

6. Sameer Kumar Jha

7. Animesh Anshu

8. Rajneesh Chandra Suman

9. Pushpendra Singh

10.Amit Upanshu

11.Ravi Kumar Gupta

12.Gaurav Shukla .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.

4. The Chairman, Departmental Promotion Committee cum Development
Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

.... .... .... Respondents
WITH

W.P.(S) No. 5217 of 2022

1. Mukesh Kumar

2. Kamlesh Kumar

3. Satish Kumar Upadhaya

4. Santosh Kumar Mahto .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary of the State,
Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.

4. Engineer in Chief, Road Construction Department, Engineering
Building, Ranchi.

5. Santosh Kumar Ravi .... .... .... Respondents
WITH

W.P.(S) No. 672 of 2023

Ajit Kumar Rai .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi.

5. Director General cum Inspector General of Police,
Jharkhand, Ranchi. .... .... .... Respondents
WITH

W.P.(S) No. 696 of 2023

1.Ravi Kant Prasad

2.Abid Khan

3.Ajay Kumar Keshri

4.Ajay Kumar .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/ Principal Secretary,
Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, Government
of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

2. Under Secretary to Government, Home, Prison and Disaster
Management Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government
of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand,
Ranchi.

.... .... .... Respondents
WITH

W.P.(S) No. 759 of 2023

1. Satyendra Kumar Pandey

2. Dilip Kumar Mishra

3. Neelkanth Kumar Thakur

4. Chandan Kumar Chourasia

5. Anuj Kumar

6. Narendra Prasad Gupta

7. Shiv Kumar Dutt

8. Ravi Shankar Swarnkar

9. Md. Mustaque

10.Anil Kumar Singh

11.Subhash Yadav

12.Anand Kumar

13.Binod Kumar Sharma

14.Mrityunjay Kumar

15.Uma Shankar Tiwari
.... .... .... Petitioners
Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

3. The Principal Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

4. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand,
Ranchi.

6. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel),
Jharkhand, Ranchi. .... .... .... Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Giri, Advocate
Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III
Md. Shahabuddin, S.C. VII
Mr. Sahabaj Akhtar, AC to AAG III
Ms. Shrestha Mehta, AC to SC II
Ms. Shaurya Dwivedi, AC to SC II
Mr. Praveen Akhouri, SC (Mines)-I
Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, AC to SC (Mines)-I
Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, SC V
Mr. J.F. Toppo, GA V
Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to GA V
Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to SC-II
For the Resp./Pvt. Resps. : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Z. A. Khan, Advocate
Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate
Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shobha Lakra, Advocate
Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
For the Intervener : Dr. K. S. Chouhan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ravi, Advocate

-----

C.A.V. ON 12.02.2024 PRONOUNCED ON 12.03.2024

1. Memo No. 14/Court/02-11/2022 Ka 3463 dated 03.06.2022, issued by the
Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, is under challenge in all
these writ petitions. Since common question of law is involved in all these
matters, therefore, they have been heard together and will be disposed of by
common order.

W.P. (S) No. 696 of 2023

2. In W.P. (S) No. 696 of 2023 letter issued by the Under Secretary to the
Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of
Jharkhand addressed to the Additional Director General of Police (Karmik)
dated 10.11.2022 (Annexure-5) is under challenge. By this letter, promotion
to unreserved post of Dy. S.P, the post of Inspector of Police has been
declared to be the Basic cadre, and seniority in this cadre is to be considered
while granting promotion.

3. To put it precisely, unreserved seats in the roster to the promotional posts
have been made open to members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe,
to be filled up by seniority.

4. It is specifically argued in this case that all petitioners in this case were
appointed initially to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. During course of
time, they were promoted from the rank of Sub Inspector of Police to the
post of inspector of police. They were not promoted to the post of Inspector
by virtue of merit, but on the basis of available vacancy in the roster point
for the reserved category of SC/ST. Had they been promoted on merit, then
the circular of the central Government as well as the ratio of R.K.
Sabharwal (supra) could have squarely covered the case. The post of
Inspector is not a Basic cadre post, as no direct appointment is made to this
post. Indisputably this is a promotional post and in order to circumvent the
settled law, by virtue of the letter dated 10.11.2022, issued by the Under
Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management,
Government of Jharkhand (Annexure-5), the post of Inspector has been
declared to be Basic cadre post. If this interpretation is accepted, it will
result in candidates who had availed the benefit of reservation, to again get
the benefit to the post under unreserved category, which is against the law
as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K Sabharwal case.

5. To avoid multiplicity, the service excerpts of the petitioners are put in the
following tabular chart:-

Sl. Name of Date of Category Date of
No. petitioners appointment as promotion as
S.I. Inspector of
Police
1 Ravi Kant Prasad 05.09.1994 General 14.05.2016
2 Abid Khan 05.09.1994 General 24.04.2015
3 Ajay Kumar 05.09.1994 General 24.04.2015
Keshri
4 Ajay Kumar 05.09.1994 General 14.05.2016

6. Number of schedule tribe/schedule caste Sub Inspector, who were though
juniors in rank, than the petitioners, got promotion to the post of Inspector
of Police at an earlier point of time, taking the benefit of reservation under

Article 16(4)(a)
of the Constitution, but on the post earmarked for reserved
category. It is contended that the candidates belonging to the SC/ST
category having twice taken benefit of reservation at the time of
appointment, as well as at the time of promotion to the rank of Inspector.
Therefore giving them preferential treatment in matter of promotion to the
post of Dy.S.P will be against the ratio as laid down in
Deepa E.V. v. Union
of India
, (2017) 12 SCC 680.

7. It is argued that reference to the letters of the Government of India for
promotion to unreserved roster point to those appointed on reservation is
misplaced, as none of these letters was for those members of Schedule
Castes and Schedule Tribes, who had been appointed on reservation. These
letters are with respect to those, who had been appointed on merit and,
therefore, their promotion to unreserved point was unquestioned.

8. Further line of argument is that R.K. Sabharwal (supra) has been relied
upon in the impugned notification, but the said Judgment does not permit
the promotion to the unreserved post, by one who has availed of reservation
at any stage.
As a matter of fact, law is settled that once a candidate is
appointed by seeking reservation under Schedule Castes and Schedule
Tribes category or relaxation, migration to general category is not
permissible in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in
Deepa E.V. v. Union of India
, (2017) 12 SCC 680.

9. The appellant, who has applied under OBC category by availing age
relaxation and also attending the interview under the "OBC category"

cannot claim right to be appointed under the General category.

10. On a combined reading of Rule 9 of the Export Inspection Agency
(Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and also the proceedings dated 1-7-1998, we
find that there is an express bar for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC
who have availed relaxation for being considered for general category
candidates.

Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan
, (2018) 11 SCC 352

49. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC, who had taken
relaxation of age, were not entitled to be migrated to the unreserved
vacancies; the State of Rajasthan has migrated such candidates who
have taken concession of age against the unreserved vacancies
which resulted displacement of a large number of candidates who
were entitled to be selected against the unreserved category
vacancies. The candidates belonging to unreserved category who
could not be appointed due to migration of candidates belonging to
SC/ST/BC were clearly entitled for appointment which was denied to
them on the basis of the above illegal interpretation put by the State.

W.P. (S) No.2189 of 2023

11. In this case the Petitioners belong to the General (unreserved category) and
were appointed to the post of ' Training officer' on different dates during
the period 2011-2017.

12. Under "Jharkhand Industrial Training Service/cadre (appointment,
promotion and service conditions of non-gazetted posts) Rules,2021", the
post of ' Chief Training Officer' is to be filled only by way of promotion
from the substantive post of 'Training Officers' who had rendered a
satisfactory service for 5 years to the said post.

13. But the resolution no. 1072 dated 17.02.2009, already 26%,10%,8% and,
6% of promotional posts are earmarked for the employees belonging to the
S.T , SC, EBC, and BC category respectively. The remaining 50% is meant
for the unreserved category.

14. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the letter
dated 03.06.2022 bearing memo No. 3463 was not according to the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal (Supra) case.
Therefore, any promotion granted to unreserved posts to the employees of
reserved category, based on the impugned memo, was against settled law.

15. Petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 3012 of 2022 is Assistant Engineer in the
Department of Water Resources and was initially appointed as Junior
Engineer (Technical) on 21.11.2007 and was promoted to the post of
Assistant Engineer on 20.11.2018. He is also aggrieved by the impugned
memo which makes provision for the promotion from the reserved point
roster to be promoted to the roster point for unreserved category.

16. The Petitioner has rendered 3 years and 10 months of service on the post of
Assistant Engineer. Minimum length of service for promotion from the post
of Assistant Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer is 5 years as per the
state government resolution dated 16.01.2012. Promotion of private
respondent nos. 5 to 9 have been undertaken vide notification dated
27.12.2022. These promotions have been made against unreserved roster
points by following the impugned government letter dated 03.06.2022.

17. It is argued that the present case is not concerned with consequential
seniority, it is also not concerned with the 85th Amendment of the
Constitution of India. The case is about following the law laid down in the
Judgment of R.K. Sabharwal case.

18. Petitioners in W.P. (S) No.5217 of 2022 were appointed to the unreserved
post of Junior Engineer through direct competitive examination conducted
by Jharkhand Public Service Commission. They apprehend their prospect
for promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineer to be adversely affected in
view of the impugned memo of the Govt. dated 03.06.2022. They claim to
be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer having rendered
more than 5 years of regular service on the feeder post, and seek direction
for considering their case for promotion.

19. It is contended that the provision of promotion from reserved to unreserved
is against the ratio laid down by the Apex Court In R.K Sabharwal case
(supra) and is also not in accord with the Government of India letter dated
11.07.2002 as contained in office memorandum no.36028/17/2001
Estt.(Res). The government of India specifically provides in the
memorandum, "Only those persons, belonging to reserved category, are
to be considered for promotion against unreserved vacancies, who have
entered in the feeder grade on their own merit and not owing to any
reservation or relaxation of qualification".

20. It is also argued that the impugned memo will result in excessive
reservation, exceeding 50% ceiling as laid down in Indra Sawhney case.

W.P. (S) No.3216 of 2022

21. Impugned memo dated 03.06. 2022 is under challenge, wherein it has been
provided that promotion will be undertaken from reserved roster point seat
to unreserved roster points vacancy in the matter of seniority-cum-fitness.
Further prayer is for direction to initiate the promotion process, on the basis
of reserved to reserve and unreserved to unreserve.

22. Petitioners were appointed by a common order in the same cadre and on the
same post under the unreserved category and were posted as Junior
Engineer vide departmental order 3518 dated 14.11.2016, and they gave
their joining. The impugned order has been issued at the level of secretary
of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa,
without assent of the Governor of Jharkhand. Memo is an executive
instruction is not issued under Article 161/163/309 of the Constitution of
India.

23. In Water Resource Department, there are 10 posts of Executive Engineer
(Technical) that are unreserved, and 5 posts are in the reserved roster point.
In the present 3 posts of executive engineer are vacant in the unreserved
roster point. If the earlier system for promotion from reserved to reserve
and unreserved to unreserve is followed, the petitioners will be entitled for
the vacant posts.

WP(S) No.672 of 2023

24. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner serving on the post of
Constable and the next higher promotional rank is of Assistant Sub
Inspector of Police. Petitioner belongs to the general category and was
appointed on 27.09.2005 and claims to fulfill the eligibility criteria for
promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. Impugned
notification is affecting his promotional avenues.

25. Person of SC/ST category, who had been appointed much after the
appointment of the petitioner, by taking advantage of the accelerated
promotion on reservation, got promoted to the post of ASI. Those juniors to
the petitioner have already become much senior to the petitioner and they
are also enjoying consequential said seniority on the basis of 85th
Constitutional amendment 2001.

26. In the police department in Jharkhand already 26% of promotional posts
earmarked for the employees belonging to the ST category, and 10% for the
SC category, remaining 64% is meant for unreserved category.

27. After completing the PTC training the petitioner became entitled for
promotion to the next higher post of ASI, but vide Memo No., 6752 dated
24.12.2020, blanket decision was taken by the state government for not
granting any promotion to the employees till further decision. The blanket
stay was challenged in WP(S) No.1390/2021 and other analogous cases. In
pursuant to the order passed to consider the cases of employees for
promotion, who were otherwise fit for promotion, the state government
came out with the impugned memo, by which the blanket stay on promotion
has been withdrawn with certain explanation and illustration regarding
promotion of SC/ST government employees.

28. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that in compliance to
the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. K.
Sabharwal (supra), the Government of Bihar, Personnel and Administrative
Reforms Department issued letter dated 30.09.1995 which specifically
provides in Clause-4, that vacancy of category which becomes available
after retirement/promotion and for other reasons will be filled from the
same category from which the vacancy is available i.e. vacancy of general
Category will be filled from the General Category and vacancy of reserved
category will be filled from the respective reserved category. On account of
the impugned letter, contradictory policy in promotion is being followed in
the State of Jharkhand and in the State of Bihar. In the State of Bihar in
promotion matters, only the candidates from unreserved category take the
roster points fixed for unreserved post, but in Jharkhand it has been thrown
open to all, so that even a candidate from the reserved category on seniority
can fill up the vacancies accruing against the unreserved point.

29. Petitioners apprehend their promotional prospects to be jeopardized on
account of the impugned memo which seeks to give promotion to those
appointed on reservation, to unreserved roster points.

W.P(S) No.759 of 2023

30. Petitioner(s) are serving on the post of Literate Constables who have been
appointed on different dates on the post of Constable(s) in the year 2005.
Petitioners' future prospect of promotion is being affected by the Letter of
the Government bearing Memo No.3463 of 2022.

31. Petitioners were found fit for promotion by Central Selection Board/
Committee meeting held on 30.09.2020, and the said letter was issued from
the office of the Additional Director General (Personnel), Jharkhand and the
same was intimated to the Jharkhand Police, Hazaribagh and all the regional
DIGs. Petitioner also completed the PTC training for promotion to the next
higher post of ASI in the year 2015 itself. However, vide Memo No.6752
dated 24.12.2020, the State Government brought an order about promotion
of the employees of the State Government. Consequently, the promotion of
the petitioner was stalled.

32. Matter was considered in W.P.(S) No.1390 of 2021 wherein the said order
was quashed. However, superseding the petitioners, constables junior to the
petitioner were granted promotion vide Memo No.116 dated 02.02.2023
issued by the Additional Director General (Personnel), Jharkhand vide
Annexure-4.

33. Provision of Jharkhand Police Manual has not been complied with, which
mandates that before giving effect to recommendation for promotion at least
40 days before passing of the order of promotion, the DIG shall publish by
range order, the name(s) of those published to be promoted.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

34. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents/intervener in
W.P. (S) No. 696 of 2023, submits that the promotion to the Post of Dy. S.P.
is governed by 'Jharkhand Rajya Police Seva Niyamabali, 2012 whereby
Chapter IV, Rule 11 deals with the promotion of Dy. S.P. from the feeder
post of Inspector. Based on seniority-cum-merit, as per the said rule, feeder
post comprises of the officers who are promoted to the rank of Inspector of
Police, Sargent Major as well as reserved Inspector. While granting
promotion, the seniority in the feeder post is to be reckoned with as per the
Rule. Writ Petition is not maintainable as neither the rule is under-challenge
nor the Gradation list of seniority is under-challenge.

35. It is submitted by learned senior counsel Ajit Kumar for the answering
respondents in W.P. (S) No 3012 of 2023, that they were directly appointed
to the feeder post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2013 whereas the
petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 2018
and, therefore, they were seniors to the petitioner. At the time when they
were appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer, which is the feeder cadre
for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, the petitioner was not even
born in the cadre of Assistant Engineer.

36. The seniority list has not been challenged anywhere in the instant writ
petition and as per the rules, the promotion is to be given on seniority-cum-
merit. Therefore, to accept the argument of the petitioner will amount to
promotion by supersession of the seniority list. Since the answering
respondents already stand much senior to the petitioner, therefore, in the
matter of promotion the principle of reservation will have no application,
rather they will be promoted on the basis of seniority cum merit.

37. It is argued that the ratio laid down in
Deepa EV
case (supra) will not apply
in the present cases as the facts are distinguishable. The said authority was
with regard to a candidate who had sought age relaxation at the time of
appointment on being the member of OBC, and having faced interview and
thereafter they sought appointment against the unreserved seat. In the
instant case, it is not a case of appointment, rather it is a case of promotion
where determining the factor of the seniority list and the said ratio will not
apply here.

38. It is further submitted that the catch-up rule will not apply in the present
case, as the question is not about the inter-se seniority between the persons
coming from the same cadre. The petitioner is coming from the stream of
Junior Engineer, whereas the answering respondents are directly appointed
to the post of Assistant Engineer.

39. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of
Assistant Engineer on 20.11.2018 and the basic requirement for completing
five years on the feeder post would be complete only after rendering five
years of service on the said post in December, 2023. Before even being
eligible for the said post of promotion, they have preferred the writ petitions
in the year 2022.

40. The main contention of the petitioner is that the promotion to the post of
officers in the Engineering Service is guided by the Bihar Engineering
Service Class-1 Rules, 1939. Under rule 17 the promotion is to be made by
seniority and merit, combined with more importance to be attached to merit.
Rule 27 provides that the seniority in the service shall be determined by the
date of officer's substantive appointment to the service irrespective of the
pay drawn by him, provided that the member of the service who holds a
superior post substantively, shall always be deemed to be the senior to an
officer who holds an inferior post substantively. The seniority of the
officers appointed on the same date, shall be determined in accordance with
the order on merit in which they were placed at the time of their selection
for appointment.

41. In the event of amalgamation of cadres, seniority is determined with
reference to the date of appointment in particulars grade of substantive and
continuous officiating post, whichever is earlier, but the inter-se seniority of
incumbents, in any group of post as amongst themselves is not to be
disturbed in the process of amalgamation. Reference is made to the
Government of Bihar, Department of Personnel Notification No. 3/R-I-106
/72-P/15784 dated 26th August, 1972 which lays down general principle and
procedure for fixation of inter-se seniority in service cadre. This notification
further provides that persons promoted from the gazetted rank to another
gazetted rank shall rank senior to the persons promoted to the gazetted rank
at the same time from non-gazetted rank. Reliance is placed on 2012 SCC
Online Delhi 2809 = 2012 (132) DRJ 229 DB (
A.K. Gautam Vs. Union of
India & Ors.
), para 5.

42. Mr. Shubhashis Rasik Soren, learned counsel for respondent no. 8 in
W.P.(S) No. 3012 of 2022, adopts the plea already taken by Mr. Ajit Kumar,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 and 7. It is
further added that the case of respondent no.8 is on similar footing to that of
respondent nos. 6 and 7 as they had been directly appointed to the post of
Assistant Engineer vide notification dated 02.09.2013 and as per the merit
list, he was placed at Sl. No. 11.

43. With regard to the point of law raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the
impugned notification is not in the name of the Governor but is an
executive order signed by the Principal Secretary, it is argued that
Article
166(3)
enables that the Governor shall make rules for the more convenient
transaction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the
allocation among Ministers of the said business. In so far as it is not
business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution
required to act in his discretion, therefore there is no illegality in the
clarificatory letter of the Govt.

44. Rule 55 of the Jharkhand Rules of Executive Business, 2000 has been
framed under
Article 166(3)
and Rule 55 specifically provides that before
framing any policy or enacting any rule with regard to appointment,
recruitment promotion, the Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha shall be consulted. Department of Personnel,
Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha derives clarificatory power in view
of Rule 55 read with Schedule-1 (kha)(ii).

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

45. It is submitted by learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
State that the instant clarificatory notification, which is under challenge, has
been brought to remove anomaly that was taking place on wrong
interpretation of the judgment passed in
R.K. Sabharwal
(supra) case.

The
effect of the interpretation to
R.K. Sabharwal
(supra) as proposed by the
Petitioners, will lead to a situation where an officer, who is much below in
the seniority list, will be given promotion superseding the officer of the
Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes candidates only for the reason that the
roster points to the promotional post were for unreserved post.

46. It is further clarified that the promotion to the unreserved post is not
perpetual in nature and the principle of replacement is followed to the
extent that when a candidate of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes is
promoted to unreserved post, on a subsequent stage of roster clearance, the
seat, occupied by the said candidate, is reckoned as reserved post and
vacancy arising later is treated as unreserved post. Reliance is placed on
(2022) 10 SCC 595 para 11.
ANALYSIS

47. Litigating parties in these batch of cases, are locked in a dispute spurred by
a memo of the Government, which has direct repercussion on their
promotional prospects in service. Impugned Memo in effect, throws open
unreserved roster points in the promotional ladder, to those employees who
have been been appointed on reservation. There is no dispute whatsoever
about the employees of the SC/ST category who are selected on merit and
appointed against the unreserved posts. Issue mainly is whether those
employees who were appointed on reserved posts can be promoted to the
roster points for unreserved category. The following issues have been raised
at Bar in the instant writ petition:

I. Can employees of the SC/ST category appointed against reserved post,
who are senior to the employees of the unreserved category in the
Basic cadre, be promoted to the unreserved roster point?
II. If the impugned memo will result in excessive reservation?
III. Can the employees who are appointed on reservation, and have been
promoted to reserved roster point, be promoted to the next higher post
in the general roster on the basis of their seniority in the feeder post?
IV. If the impugned memo dated 03.06.2022 is in consonance with
the principle as
laid down by
the Apex Court in
R.K. Sabharwal and
Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors
1995(2) SCC 745 and the letters of the
Govt. of India, in the memo referred to.

V. Can the post of Inspector be treated as Basic cadre for promotion to the
post of Dy.S.P?

VI. If the employees appointed by reservation, can be given
promotion to the unreserved roster point by way of an executive
instruction?

48. 'Basic cadre' is the cadre where an employee is initially appointed,
whereas 'feeder post' is meant the cadre post from where the employee is
subsequently promoted, and is the cadre for considering the seniority to the
next higher post.

49. There are certain consecrated principles of service jurisprudence which
needs to be set out at the outset, with abundant clarity. While applying the
principle of seniority-cum-merit, for the purpose of promotion, what is
required to be considered is the inter-se seniority of the employees who are
eligible for consideration. Such seniority normally is determined on the
basis of length of service, but as between employees appointed on the
same date and having the same length of service, it is generally determined
on the basis of placement in the select list for appointment. Such
determination of seniority confers certain rights and the principle of
seniority-cum-merit gives effect to such rights flowing from seniority. It
cannot, therefore, be said that in the matter of promotion, seniority has no
role for the employees eligible for promotion who are appointed on the
same date and have the same length of service. (
Refer to B.V. Sivaiah v. K.
Addanki Babu
, (1998) 6 SCC 720).

50. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India
and Ors
(1992) Supp (3) SCC 217, inter-alia held that reservation in
promotion was ultra vires, as there was no provision in the Constitution to
provide for reservation in promotions. This brought into cloud reservation
in promotion, hitherto being granted to the employees of Scheduled castes
and Scheduled tribes.

The 77th amendment was brought to deal with this
situation, brought by the restriction on reservation in promotion, as ruled in

Indra Sawhney
case (supra). This amendment incorporated clause (4A) in

Article 16
of the Constitution, reads as under.

Article 16 (4-A)
Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with
consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the
services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not
adequately represented in the services under the State.
The above amendment has received the Apex Court's imprimatur in
M.
Nagaraj v. Union of India
, (2006) 8 SCC 212. It has been held,

121. The impugned constitutional amendments by which
Articles
16(4-A)
and
16(4-B)
have been inserted flow from
Article 16(4).

They do not alter the structure of
Article 16(4).
They retain the
controlling factors or the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness
and inadequacy of representation which enables the States to
provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the
State administration under
Article 335.
These impugned amendments
are confined only to SCs and STs. They do not obliterate any of the
constitutional requirements, namely, ceiling limit of 50%
(quantitative limitation), the concept of creamy layer (qualitative
exclusion), the sub-classification between OBCs on one hand and
SCs and STs on the other hand as held in Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp
(3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] , the
concept of post-based roster with inbuilt concept of replacement as
held in R.K. Sabharwal [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 :

(1995) 29 ATC 481]
With regard to the "catch-up rule" it observed 79. Reading the
above judgments, we are of the view that the concept of "catch-up"

rule and "consequential seniority" are judicially evolved concepts to
control the extent of reservation. The source of these concepts is in
service jurisprudence. These concepts cannot be elevated to the
status of an axiom like secularism, constitutional sovereignty, etc. It
cannot be said that by insertion of the concept of "consequential
seniority" the structure of
Article 16(1)
stands destroyed or
abrogated. It cannot be said that "equality code" under
Articles 14
,
and
is violated by deletion of the "catch-up" rule. These
concepts are based on practices. However, such practices cannot be
elevated to the status of a constitutional principle so as to be beyond
the amending power of Parliament. Principles of service
jurisprudence are different from constitutional limitations.
Therefore, in our view neither the "catch-up" rule nor the concept of
"consequential seniority" is implicit in clauses (1) and (4) of
Article
as correctly held in Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684 :
1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] .

The Hon'ble Supreme Court also reiterated law on 50% ceiling in
reservation and that

48. It is the equality "in fact" which has to be decided looking at the
ground reality. Balancing comes in where the question concerns the
extent of reservation. If the extent of reservation goes beyond cut-off
point then it results in reverse discrimination. Anti-discrimination
legislation has a tendency of pushing towards de facto reservation.
Therefore, a numerical benchmark is the surest immunity against
charges of discrimination.

(emphasis supplied)

51. What follows from the above is that reservation in promotion as has been
brought by the Constitutional amendment has been tested and accepted by
judicial verdict, with a rider that it cannot be excessive, beyond the 50%
limit as
laid down in

Indra Sawhney
case.

52. In W.P.(S) No. 3012 of 2022, Petitioner was Junior Engineer (Technical)
appointed on 21.11.2007, and was promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer on 20.11.2018. The private Respondents in this case were
appointed directly to the post of Assistant Engineer, in the year 2013.
Claim of Respondents to promotion to the unreserved post of Executive
Engineer, is not based on consequential seniority, but on account of their
earlier appointment to the said feeder post. Petitioner seeks promotion on
the ground that as per roster the vacancy was against the unreserved post. If
the plea as advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is accepted, it will result to
anomalous result. Vacancy arising in the unreserved roster point will have
to be kept in abeyance, till those from General category become eligible for
promotion. It will also result in employees of the SC/ST reserved category,
being denied promotion despite being senior to those of the unreserved
category at the time of their appointment. This will violate the principle of
Seniority-cum-merit which is the standard for consideration of promotion
as per the rules. In the result promotion of the answering Respondents 5 to
9 has to be given primacy over the Petitioner, as they were directly
appointed to the feeder post, before the promotion of the petitioner to the
said post.

53. The case of the Respondents in this case is further supported by the
clarificatory letter of the Union of India dated 11.07.2002, on which the
impugned letter is based, which provides that if an unreserved vacancy
arises in a cadre and there is any SC/ST candidate within the normal
zone of consideration in the feeder grade, such SC/ST candidate cannot
be denied promotion on the plea that the post is not reserved. Such a
candidate will be considered for promotion along with other candidates
treating him as if he belongs to general category. In case he is selected, he
will be appointed to the post and will be adjusted against the
unreserved point.

54. Catch up rule will also not apply in this case, as the Petitioner and the
private Respondents have not been appointed to the feeder post by the same
recruitment process, or that Respondents had obtained accelerated
promotion to the feeder post.

55. A prior appointee to the feeder post by direct recruitment whether, reserved
or unreserved is entitled to promotion to the unreserved post, vis-à-vis a
subsequent appointee, by virtue of his seniority and length of service in the
feeder post, subject to fulfilling the eligibility criteria as per the applicable
service rules.

56. Validity of the impugned letter dated 03.06.2022 is not central to decide
W.P(S) 3012 of 2022, because promotions are based on seniority-cum-
merit in the feeder post in which the private Respondents were appointed
and are admittedly senior to the Petitioner from the date of their
appointment.

57. Under the circumstance W.P.(S) No.3012 of 2022 fails for the reason that
the private Respondents have been appointed to the post of Assistant
Engineer, much before the promotion of the Petitioners to this post. The
principle of law as
laid down in

Deepa E.V. v. Union of India
, (2017) 12
SCC 680 will not apply in the present case, as it is not a case of
appointment, but of promotion.

In
Deepa E.V
case (supra) the appellant had
applied under OBC category by availing age relaxation and also attended
interview under the "OBC category" therefore was held that she cannot
claim right to be appointed under the General category, in view of the
express bar for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC in the relevant
rule.

58. Validity of the impugned letter is central to the adjudication of the rest of
Writ Petitions. It shall be desirable to extract the salient feature of the
impugned letter which are as under.

i. By this letter, earlier Letter No. 6752 dated 24.12.2020 has been
recalled, in view of the recommendation of the Special Committee
constituted to consider the complaints of the members of Schedule
Castes and Schedule Tribes in the matter of promotion. Anomaly
which this letter seeks to correct is that, those juniors in unreserved
category were being given precedence in promotion, to those who
were senior and members of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
category.

ii. The stay of promotion was recalled under this letter with following
clarification:

"From the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

R.K. Sabharwal and Others Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
on
10.02.1995 and in the light of the letters of the Department of
Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of India,
Letter No. 36028/17/2001 Estt. (RES) dated 11.07.2002 and Letter
No. 36012/45/2005 Estt (RES) dated 10.08.2010, it is clear that
while considering promotion on seniority-cum-merit in the Basic
cadre, those who are members of Schedule Castes and Schedule
Tribes category and are senior, will be considered for promotion to
unreserved post over those who are in general category. While
granting promotion against the unreserved post, it will not be
necessary to see as to whether the members of Schedule Castes and
Schedule Tribes were appointed on the basis of merit or on
reservation".

59. This letter draws on the letters of the Department of Personnel, Public
Grievance and Pension, Government of India, Letter No. 36028/17/2001
Estt. (RES) dated 11.07.2002 which is extracted below:-

Subject : Reservation in promotion-Treatment of SC/ST candidates
promoted on their own merit.

The clarification has been made which as under:-

(i) The SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own
merit and not owing to reservation or relaxation of
qualifications will not be adjusted against the reserved points of the
reservation roster. They will be adjusted against unreserved points.

(ii) If an unreserved vacancy arises in a cadre and there is any SC/ST
candidate within the normal zone of consideration in the feeder
grade, such SC/ST candidate cannot be denied promotion on
the plea that the post is not reserved. Such a candidate will be
considered for promotion along with other candidates treating him
as if he belongs to general category. In case he is selected, he will
be appointed to the post and will be adjusted against the
unreserved point.

(iii) SC/ST candidates appointed on their own merit (by direct
recruitment or promotion) and adjusted against unreserved points
will retain their status of SC/ST and will be eligible to get benefit
of reservation in future/further promotions, if any.

Subsequent office memorandum dated 10th August, 2010 of the Ministry of
Department of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Government of
India is also to the same effect.

It will also be desirable to extract the relevant ratio as
laid down in

R.K.
Sabharwal v. State of Punjab
, (1995) 2 SCC 745, as the impugned letter
banks on the ratio as
laid down in
this case.

5. The roster is implemented in the form of running account from year
to year. The purpose of "running account" is to make sure that the
Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes and Backward Classes get their
percentage of reserved posts. .......... Once the prescribed percentage
of posts is filled the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and
thereafter the roster does not survive.

7. When all the roster points in a cadre are filled the required
percentage of reservation is achieved. Once the total cadre has full
representation of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes and Backward Classes
in accordance with the reservation policy then the vacancies arising
thereafter in the cadre are to be filled from amongst the category of
persons to whom the respective vacancies belong.

60. To appreciate issues raised it will be desirable to consider some of the fall
out of the impugned letter dated 03.06.2022.

I. Constables of S.C/S.T category appointed much after the Petitioner, by
taking advantage of accelerated promotion on reservation got
promoted to the post of ASI, against the reserved point roster. It is
apprehended that in view of the impugned letter, if they are granted
promotion to the next promotional ladder of sub-inspector to the
unreserved roster point, on the basis of their seniority in the feeder post
for the next promotion, and the unreserved posts in the rank of sub
inspector is filled up, it will adversely affect the promotional prospects
of those from the General category. (As raised in W.P. (S) 672 of 2023
& W.P. (S) 759 of 2023)
II. Petitioners in W.P. (S) 3012 of 2022 & W.P. (S) 5217 of 2022,
apprehend similar consequence as a result of throwing open of the
unreserved roster points in the promotional posts, to those promoted
from reserved point roster.

61. Promotion to reserved roster point is covered under
Article 16 (4-A)
of the
Constitution. After filling up reserved roster point, if the unreserved roster
points are also filled up by those who were initially appointed, or promoted
on reservation, then it will definitely impinge on the promotional avenue of
those in the unreserved category. The vacancies ensuing against the
reserved posts, can be filled up from unreserved category on a later date by
the "principle of replacement". But before such vacancy occurs in reserved
category there will be an excess of employees from the reserved category,
who will be stonewalling the promotional prospects of employees from
General category, and in the meantime some may retire from the service,
and permanently lose their legitimate right to promotion, despite having
fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria. This will lead to excessive
reservation, as those who are appointed on reservation in the SC/ST
category are promoted not only against the reserved roster points, but also
against the unreserved roster points leading to an excess of representation.
As stated above principle of replacement cannot fully mitigate the skewed
outcome of such promotions. Such excessive reservation will be against the
ratio as
laid down in

M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India
(2006) 8 SCC 21 and
Indra Sawhney [(1992) Supp (3) SCC 217].

62. Equality is the foundational ideal of the Constitution and despite being
accepted as a dynamic concept with many facets, it cannot be interpreted in
a manner that it loses its fundamental essence. Constitution is poised on a
delicate balance of competing rights. If that balance is disturbed, the
preambular objectives of Justice, liberty, equality and fraternity will be
undermined. Here we are dealing with cases of employees who have started
their career at the lowest rung of administration like constables and literate
constables, apart from those who are in the rank of Junior Engineer,
Assistant Engineer, Technical Officers. Any cadre to remain vibrant need to
have upward mobility with modest promotional avenues. Human life is all
about hope and aspirations for self-improvement. Employees irrespective
of their category have legitimate expectations of promotion in their service
career. If employees with unblemished service record, are denied
promotion without any justifiable reason, only for their accidents of birth,
then institutions can become morbid, breeding dispiritedness, disaffection
among the employees.

63. It is also established that seniority between employees appointed on the
basis of placement in the select list for appointment, is the fundamental
factor for determining seniority. Roster is a mechanism to maintain
percentage of quota reserved for respective categories in the cadre. In order
to fill up the reserved roster point, and maintain the percentage of
reservation, promotion from the reserved category, dehors the select list
seniority, is the legally accepted norm. To fill up the reserved point roster,
even consequential seniority to those earlier granted promotion has been
allowed under
Article 16 (4-A).
It has however been emphatically held in

R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab
, (1995) 2 SCC 745 :

"7. When all the roster points in a cadre are filled the required
percentage of reservation is achieved. Once the total cadre has full
representation of the Scheduled Castes/Tribes and Backward
Classes in accordance with the reservation policy then the
vacancies arising thereafter in the cadre are to be filled from
amongst the category of persons to whom the respective vacancies
belong.
In
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
, (2006) 8 SCC 212,
overriding concern to maintain the 50% quota is reflected in the
following observation 82. Before dealing with the scope of the
constitutional amendments we need to recap the judgments
in Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S)
Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] and R.K. Sabharwal [(1995) 2 SCC
745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] . In the former
case the majority held that 50% rule should be applied to each
year otherwise it may happen that the open competition channel
may get choked if the entire cadre strength is taken as a unit.
However, in R.K. Sabharwal [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC
(L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] this Court stated that the entire
cadre strength should be taken into account to determine whether
the reservation up to the quota limit has been reached. It was
clarified that the judgment in Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC
217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] was confined
to initial appointments and not to promotions. The operation of the
roster for filling the cadre strength, by itself, ensures that the
reservation remains within the ceiling limit of 50%".

(emphasis supplied)

64. Above authorities underline some of the fundamental principles while
allowing reservation in promotion. They may be summed up as under:

Firstly, when all the roster points in a cadre are filled, the required
percentage of reservation is achieved, then the vacancies arising thereafter
in the cadre are to be filled from amongst the category of persons to whom
the respective vacancies belong.

Secondly, numerical benchmarks like ceiling limit of 50% based on post-
specific roster is to be maintained.

65. The office memorandum of the Govt. of India
referred to above
specifically
in its very 'subject' refers to reservation in promotion of SC/St candidates
appointed on their own merit. Meaning thereby it is not with regard to
those appointed on reservation. Clause (i) and (iii) of its letter, specifically
refers to those who are appointed on their own merit. Clause (ii) protects
the interests of the SC/ST candidates within the normal zone of
consideration in the feeder grade, and are to be considered for promotion
along with other candidates treating him to be belonged to general category.
The import of this clause is that on seniority in the feeder cadre, candidate
from the SC/ST category to be considered for promotion to the unreserved
point.

66. A careful reading of the impugned letter dated 03.06.2022 will show that
expression, while considering promotion on seniority-cum-merit in the
Basic cadre is used and not 'feeder post'. What the impugned letter thus
protects, is seniority derived by way of initial appointment.

67. Unreserved roster point cannot be made open, to those promoted to
reserved roster point, as it will lead to excessive reservation in the
promotional post, and not permissible in view of the ratio discussed
above. The balancing act in the form of 'replacement' to maintain the
percentage of quota, will take time to work out, only after some retire from
the reserved category. By the time such vacancy accrues in the reserved
quota for replacement by those from the unreserved category, proportion
will be excessive. This will certainly eclipse the promotional prospect of
those appointed in unreserved category, who may even retire from service
by the time replacement occurs. Therefore, such further promotion from the
feeder post to the unreserved roster point is not permissible, as it will
amount to reverse discrimination against those appointed in unreserved
category, seriously undermining their right of promotion. Excessive
reservation is not permissible unless it is supported by quantifiable data
(
Refer to M.Nagraj
case para-86,102).

Any contrary of the impugned letter
will also not be in consonance with the ratio as
laid down in

R.K Sabharwal

case (supra) as it permits promotion from reserved to reserved roster points.

68. In view of the above, the issues raised at Bar is answered as under:

I. Employees of the SC/ST category appointed against reserved post,
who are senior to employees of the unreserved category in the Basic
cadre, can be promoted to the unreserved roster point. Such employees
can also be promoted to the reserved roster point. Against unreserved
vacancy in general cadre any SC/ST candidate in the feeder post who
is directly appointed (not promoted) to the said feeder post, and is
senior to any employee of the unreserved category, can be promoted to
the unreserved roster point.

II. The impugned memo being confined to promotion from Basic cadre,
will not result in excessive reservation in the promotional posts.
III. Seniority-cum-merit in the Basic cadre of appointment can only be
considered for promotion of SC/ST employees appointed on reserved
posts and not in the next higher post.

IV. The impugned memo dated 03.06.2022, is in consonance with the
principle as
laid down by
the Apex Court in
R.K. Sabharwal and Ors.
Vs State of Punjab & Ors
1995(2) SCC 745 and the letters of the Govt.
of India, in the memo referred to as it is confined to considering
promotion on seniority-cum-merit in the Basic cadre.
V. Post of Inspector is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P,
and seniority-cum-merit is to be considered in this cadre for promotion
to the post of Dy.S.P. It cannot be treated as Basic cadre, as it will
result in promotion of those appointed to the reserved roster point of
Inspector, to the unreserved roster point of Dy.S.P, by treating it as
Basic cadre. Promotion to the Post of Dy.S.P. is governed by
'Jharkhand Rajya Police Seva Niyamabali, 2012 whereby Chapter IV,
Rule 11 deals with the promotion of Dy.S.P. from the feeder post of
Inspector. Exercise to convert the feeder post to Basic cadre is not
supported by rule, and is a colourable exercise of power by an
executive instruction, to favour those promoted on reserved roster
point of Inspector, to the detriment of those in the general category.

Part of Letter No. 12/M. 2-1010/2022-4474 dated 10.11.2022 which
converts the post of Inspector as Basic cadre not being in consonance
with the law
laid down in

R.K. Sabharwal
case (supra) is struck down.

VI. There is no bar in giving promotion to the unreserved roster point by
way of an executive instruction as per their seniority in the Basic
cadre, in view of the ratio as
laid down in

Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure
Vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende
(2020) 11 SCC 399.
RESULT
Challenge to the impugned Memo No. 3463 dated 03.06.2022 made in all
the Writ Petitions fails, subject to the purport of this memo as held above.
Apprehension of Petitioners in W.P.(S) No.2189 of 2023, W.P.(S) No.5217
of 2022, W.P.(S) No.3216 of 2022, W.P.(S) No.672 of 2023 and W.P.(S)
No.759 of 2023, that this memo will result in excessive reservation is
misconceived and, accordingly, these Writ Petitions stand disposed of with
direction to initiate the process for promotion for those in the consideration
zone without any further delay.

W.P.(S) No.696 of 2023 is allowed to the extent that Part of Letter No.
12/M. 2-1010/2022-4474 dated 10.11.2022 which converts the post of
Inspector to Basic cadre is struck down.

W.P.(S) No.3012 of 2022 is dismissed as the Private Respondents were
appointed to the feeder post of Assistant Engineer, much before the
promotion of the Petitioner to this post.

I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 12th March, 2024
AFR/ AKT/Sandeep/Anit