Jharkhand High Court
Nazir Akhtar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 July, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:20778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2297 of 2020
---------
1. Nazir Akhtar, aged about 44 years, S/o. Azimuddin Ansari,
resident of: Village Kuchila, P.O + P.S: Chhipadohar, Dist: Latehar,
State: Jharkhand-829204.
2. Manish Kumar, aged about 38 yrs S/o Alok Kumar Jha, R/o
Police Training College, Hazaribagh, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand-825301.
3. Anand Jyoti Minj, aged about 37 yrs., S/o William Minj, House
no. 1992/A8, Jharkhand Nagar, Saket Vihar, Argora, Doranda,
Ranchi, Doranda, Jharkhand-834002.
4. Md. Muzibur Rahman, aged about 39 yrs., S/o Khudabax
Momin, R/o Village- Phudikipur, Sahebganj, Phudikipur, Jharkhand-
816108. ...... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and
Disaster Management, having its Office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. -Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.
3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Home prisons and Disaster
Management, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, State-
Jharkhand.
4. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand having its
Office at Police Headquarters, HEC, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.
5. The Inspector General of Police (Human Rights), Govt. of
Jharkhand having its Office at Police Headquarters, HEC, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.
6. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary, having its office at JPSC Building, Kutchahri, Jail More,
P.O. & P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.
7. Purushottam Kumar Singh, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as, Dy. S.P. Special Branch, C.M.
Security, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
8. Pramod Kumar Keshari, Fathers name not known to the
1
2025:JHHC:20778
petitioners, at presently posted as Jharkhand Jaguar Office, Ratu,
Near Ring Road, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
9. Sri Vikash Chandra Srivastav, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.
Deoghar, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.
10. Sri Sumit Kumar, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as I.R.B.I. Jamtara office, Additional Charge Cyber
P.S., P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District-Jamtara, Jharkhand.
11. Sri Raja Kumar Mitra, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as A.C.B. Ranchi, P.O. Kanke, P.S.
Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
12. Sri Raj Kishore, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as S.D.P.O. Simdega, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
13. Sri Ajit Kumar Vimal, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as Dy. S.P. Kotwali, P.O. G.P.O. & P.S.
Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
14. Sri Chandan Kumar Vats, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as Dy. S.P. Head Quarter, Saraikela-
Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S. Saraikela- Kharsawan, District- Saraikela-
Kharsawan, Jharkhand.
15. Sri Gyan Ranjan, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as Dy. S.P. City Bokaro, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro, District-
Bokaro, Jharkhand.
16. Md. Kaushar Ali, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as Dy. S.P. Jharkhand Jaguar Office, Ratu, Near Ring
Road, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
17. Sri Pawan Kumar-1, Fathers name not known to the petitioners,
at presently posted as Dy. S.P. D.I.G. Office Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.
Bokaro, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
18. Sri Amar Kumar Pandey, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S.
Chaibasa, District-Chaibasa, Jharkhand.
19. Sri Manoj Kumar Mahato, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Ranka, Garhwa, P.O.
Ranka, P.S. Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand.
2
2025:JHHC:20778
20. Sri Ranvir Singh, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as I.R.B. Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District-Godda,
Jharkhand.
21. Sri Manoj Kumar Jha, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Nala, Jamtara P.S., P.O. &
P.S. Jamtara, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand.
22. Sri Abhishek Kumar, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as Dy. S.P. C.I.D. Office Bokaro, P.O. &
P.S. Bokaro, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.
23. Sri Dhirendra Narayan Banka, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Chandil, Saraikela-
Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District-Saraikela- Kharsawan,
Jharkhand.
24. Sri Om Prakash Tiwary. Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Torpa, Khunti, P.O. & P.S.
Torpa, District- Khunti, Jharkhand.
25. Sri Sudarshan Kumar Aastik, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as Dy. S.P. Police Headquarters, HEC,
P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, State Jharkhand.
26. Sri Sanjay Kumar, Fathers name not known to the petitioners,
at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Bedo, P.O. & P.S. Bero, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
27. Sri Vijay Kumar Mahato, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Patamda, P.O.& P.S.
Patamda, District- East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.
28. Sri Niraj Kumar, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as Headquarter Office Incharge, P.O.& P.S. Dhurwa,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
29. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Besra, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as Dy. S.P. Rail, Dhanbad, P.O.& P.S.
Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
30. Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as Dy. S.P. Sindri, Dhanbad, P.O. &
P.S. Sindri, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
31. Sri Ajay Kerketta, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as Dy. S.P. Special Branch, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
3
2025:JHHC:20778
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
32. Sri Jaydeep Lakra, Fathers name not known to the petitioners,
at presently posted as Dy. S.P. Head Quarter Khunti, P.O. & P.S.
Khunti, District- Khunti, Jharkhand.
33. Sri Binod Rawani, Fathers name not known to the petitioners,
at presently posted as Dy. S.P. Head Quarter, Giridih, P.O. & P.S.
Giridih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand.
34. Sri Jitwahan Oraon, Fathers name not known to the petitioners,
at presently posted as Dy. S.P. Traffic Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
35. Sri Dilip Khalko, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as S.D.P.O. Garhwa, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, District-
Garhwa, Jharkhand.
36. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh-1, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur,
District- Pakur, Jharkhand.
37. Sri Santosh Kumar-I, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as Dy. S.P. A.C.B. Ranchi, P.O. Kanke,
P.S. Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
38. Sri Sunil Kumar Rajwar, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as Dy. S.P. Special Branch, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
39. Sri Bhupendra Prasad Raut, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Barkagaon, P.O.& P.S.
Barkagaon, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.
40. Amit Kumar, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
present posted & working as Dy.S.P., Special Branch (City), Ranchi, B-
Block, Combined Building, Room No. 405, Kutchery Road, Ranchi.
41.- Satish Chandra Jha, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at present working as S.D.P.O., Bermo, P.O. P.S. Bermo,
District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. ….. Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 5026 of 2021
Ajit Kumar Bimal, aged about 47 yrs. S/o Dhaneshwar Yadav, R/o
Ghatiyari, P.O.-Ghatiyari, P.S.-Sundarpahari, District-Godda,
Jharkhand-814156. …… Petitioner
4
2025:JHHC:20778
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prisons and
Disaster Management, having its Office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O-Dhurwa, P.S. -Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.
3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Home prisons and Disaster
Management, Govt. of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. -Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, State-
Jharkhand.
4. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand having its
Office at Police Headquarters, HEC, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.
5. The Inspector General of Police (Human Rights), Govt. of
Jharkhand having its Office at Police Headquarters, HEC, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S. -Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.
6. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary, having its office at JPSC Building, Kutchery, Jail More, P.O.
& P.S.-Lalpur, District-Ranchi, State-Jharkhand.
7. Purushottam Kumar Singh, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as, Dy. S.P. Special Branch, C.M.
Security, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
8. Pramod Kumar Keshari, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as Jharkhand Jaguar Office, Ratu,
Near Ring Road, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
9. Sri Vikash Chandra Srivastav, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as S.D.P.O. Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.
Deoghar, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand.
10. Sri Sumit Kumar, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as I.R.B.I. Jamtara office, Additional Charge Cyber
P.S., P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District- Jamtara, Jharkhand.
11. Sri Raja Kumar Mitra, Fathers name not known to the
petitioners, at presently posted as A.C.B. Ranchi, P.O. Kanke, P.S.
Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
12. Sri Raj Kishore, Fathers name not known to the petitioners, at
presently posted as S.D.P.O. Simdega, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondents
5
2025:JHHC:20778
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioners : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv
Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Adv
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman,
A.C. to G.P.-II
Mr. Rishabh Kaushal,
A.C. to G.P.-II
For the Resp.-JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Adv
Mr. Pravin Kr. Pandey, Adv
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv
For the Pvt. Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Chanchal Jain, Adv
——-
CAV on:- 26/06/2025 Pronounced on:- 28/07/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsels appearing for the respondents at length.
2. Since both these writ applications involve common issue
and are interconnected; as such, with consent of the parties
both were heard together and being disposed of by this
common judgment.
3. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the
respective Petitioners invoking the writ jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily
praying for quashing and setting aside of the seniority lists
dated 01.01.2016, 01.01.2017, and 01.01.2018, published by
the Respondent authorities.
The Petitioners have further challenged the
provisional seniority list dated 11.01.2024, effective from
01.01.2023, issued through Memo No. 12/P5-1048/2014
(Khand) 231/Ranchi dated 11.01.2024, as being erroneous,
arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural
justice. Additionally, the Petitioners have also prayed for
quashing of the order dated 20.09.2016; whereby the
Respondents summarily rejected their objections to the
seniority lists. The Petitioners seek consequential directions
upon the Respondents to re-fix their seniority strictly on
6
2025:JHHC:20778
merit, based solely upon the marks secured in the Jharkhand
Public Service Commission (in short JPSC) examination.
4. Briefly stated, the Petitioners participated in the
recruitment process for appointment to the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Dy. SP), initiated by an
advertisement published on 11.09.2010. In response to the
advertisement, the Petitioners applied and participated in the
selection process conducted by the JPSC. The preliminary
examination was held on 13.03.2011 and the result thereof
was declared on 20.10.2011, with the revised result being
declared on 01.11.2011. The Petitioners, having qualified in
the preliminary examination, appeared in the mains
examination conducted from 25.05.2012 to 15.06.2012. The
results of the main examination were declared on 18.09.2012.
Thereafter, the successful candidates were called
for the interview which was conducted between 30.10.2012
and 09.11.2012. The final results were published on
27.11.2012, and pursuant to the said result, recommendation
was made to the government on 10.12.2012.
5. In the meantime, the Government of Jharkhand
came out with Jharkhand State Police Service Rules, 2012
which was notified vide notification no. 3428 dated
26.07.2012 issued by Department of Home, Government of
Jharkhand. Rule 9(1) of the Jharkhand State Police Service
Rules, 2012 provides that seniority of the cadre of direct
recruits (Deputy Superintendent of Police) will be finalized
upon the total marks earned by each individual in the
following exams:-
a) Total Marks obtained in the exam conducted by JPSC at
the time of appointment.
b) Total Marks obtained at the end of training period at Police
training college.
c) Marks obtained in district training.
6. The case of the Petitioners is that the Respondent
Department came out with seniority lists dated 01.01.2016,
7
2025:JHHC:20778
01.01.2017, and 01.01.2018, wherein the Petitioners have
been placed at a position lower than where they have been
placed as per the final merit list prepared by JPSC.
The said merit lists were prepared by using only
the first two of the three criteria enumerated above and
subsequently, the State Government introduced an
amendment to the aforesaid Rule 9 of the Jharkhand State
Police Service Rules, 2012 vide Memo No. 3808 dated
07.10.2020, wherein Rule 9(1)(iii), which provided for
inclusion of marks obtained in district training towards
determination of seniority, has been struck down as district
training marks were not being awarded or considered in
seniority determination.
7. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel representing the
Petitioners that the recruitment process had been initiated
under the framework of the Bihar Police Service Rules, 1953,
which continued to remain applicable until superseded in
effect. It has been further submitted that the advertisement
for the competitive examination for appointment to the post of
Deputy Superintendent of Police was issued on 11.09.2010,
and on the said date, the Petitioners as well as other
candidates were aware that their seniority would be
determined solely on the basis of the marks they obtained in
the competitive examination as the practice of determining
inter se seniority on the basis of the merit list had been
evolved and was being followed.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on
N.T. Devin Katti & Ors. Vs. Karnataka Public Service
Commission & Ors.1; wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that:
“11. There is yet another aspect of the question. Where advertisement is
issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and
the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in
accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, and if it further1
(1990) 3 SCC 157
8
2025:JHHC:20778indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the
selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the
then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and
undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered
for selections in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the
advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention.
Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the
terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystalises on
the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in
the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the
pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance
with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not,
primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to
ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by
express provision or by necessary implication, if the amended Rules are not
retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with
the Rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement.
Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case
having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and
the relevant Rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, we would like to
make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to
an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection, but if he is
eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant Rules and
the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right for
being considered for selection in accordance with the Rules as they existed
on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on
the amendment of Rules during the pendency of selection unless the
amended Rules are retrospective in nature.
12. In B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore., the dispute related to the validity
of appointment of Assistant Engineers. The Public Service Commission
invited applications by issuing Notifications for appointment to the post of
Assistant Engineers in October 1958, May 1959 and April 1960. The
Commission made selection, interviewed the candidates and sent the select
list to the Government in October/November 1960. But before the
appointment could be made the Mysore Public Works, Engineering
Department Services (Recruitment) Rules 1960 came into force which
prescribed different provisions than those prescribed in the earlier
Notifications in pursuance whereof the Public Service Commission had made
the selections. The validity of the appointment made by the Government on
the basis of the selection made by the Commission was challenged. The
High Court quashed the selection and appointments made in pursuance
thereof. On appeal before this Court, validity of the appointment were
assailed on the ground that since the appointments had been made after the
amendment of the Rules the appointments should have been made in
accordance with the amended Rules. A Constitution Bench of this Court
rejected the contention holding that since the whole procedure of issuing
advertisement, holding interviews and recommending the names having
been followed in accordance with the then existing Rules prior to the
enforcement of the amended Rules the appointments made on the basis of
the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission could not be
rendered invalid.
13. In Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, [1983] 3 SCC 285 similar
Question arose relating to recruitment by promotion. The question was
whether promotion should be made in accordance with the Rules, in force on
the date the vacancies occurred or in accordance with the amended Rules.
The Court observed as under:
“The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be
governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted
by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of
Sub-Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal
basis and not on the Statewise basis and, therefore, there was no
question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the
vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the
slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended
rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules.”
The same view was taken in P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh. Similar view was taken in A.A. Calton v. Director of Education. It is
a well accepted principle of construction that a statutory rule or Government
Order is prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by necessary
9
2025:JHHC:20778
implication made to have retrospective effect. Where proceedings are
initiated for selection by issuing advertisement, the selection should
normally be regulated by the then existing rules and Government Orders
and any amendment of the rules or the Government Order pending the
selection should not affect the validity of the selection made by the selecting
authority or the Public Service Commission unless the amended rules or the
amended Government orders issued in exercise of its statutory power either
by express provision or by necessary intendment indicate that amended
Rules shall be applicable to the pending selections.”
9. It has been contended by Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners
that their seniority must be determined solely on the basis of
the merit list as prepared by JPSC , as the Jharkhand State
Police Service Rules, 2012 were neither notified at the time of
advertisement nor were they made applicable retrospectively,
and any subsequent amendment such as the one brought in
vide memo dated 07.10.2020 cannot retrospectively govern
their seniority determination or prejudice vested rights
acquired under the then existing legal regime.
The specific stand of the Petitioners is that at the time
of initiation of recruitment, i.e. when advertisement for the
competitive examination for appointment to the post of
Deputy Superintendent of Police was issued on 11.09.2010, it
was an established practice that inter se seniority was
determined solely on the basis of merit List as prepared by
JPSC.
10. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, representing the Petitioners
contended that the appointment letters issued to the
Petitioners also do not indicate any deviation from the
aforesaid practice. The Petitioners thus contend that any
action undertaken by the respondents in determining
seniority based on any rule other than what was prevalent at
the time of advertisement is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and non
– est in the eyes of law.
11. It has been further submitted that even if it were
to be assumed for the sake of argument that the Jharkhand
State Police Service Rules, 2012 were to apply to their case,
even then the Respondents have blatantly violated the said
rules in the manner of determining seniority. The Petitioners
10
2025:JHHC:20778
contend that Rule 9 clearly provides that seniority shall be
fixed on the basis of the total marks obtained by a candidate
in the examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public
Service Commission, as well as the marks obtained in the
basic training at the Police Training College and marks
obtained during the district training.
The Rule lays down a specific formula for
computing aggregate marks from all three components to
determine the final seniority. However, the Petitioners assert
that in complete deviation from this Rule, the Respondent
authorities proceeded to issue the seniority lists dated
01.01.2016, 01.01.2017, and 01.01.2018 by considering only
two components, marks obtained in the JPSC examination
and Police Training College, while wholly excluding the marks
of district training.
12. It is the specific case of the Petitioners that this
admitted failure to implement Rule 9 in its entirety renders
the seniority list legally unsustainable, as a rule cannot be
applied in a piecemeal manner so as to operate arbitrarily
against the interest of selected candidates.
To support the aforesaid contention, Petitioners have
relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in State of Sikkim Vs. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia and Ors. 2;
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“15. The executive power of the State cannot be exercised in the field which is
already occupied by the laws made by the legislature. It is settled law that any
order, instruction, direction or notification issued in exercise of the executive
power of the State which is contrary to any statutory provisions, is without
jurisdiction and is a nullity. But in this case we are faced with a peculiar
situation. The Rules, though enforced, remained unworkable for about five
years. The Public Service Commission, which was the authority to implement
the Rules, was not in existence during the said period. There is nothing on the
record to show as to why the Public Service Commission was not constituted
during all those five years. In the absence of any material to the contrary we
assume that there were justifiable reasons for the delay in constituting the
Commission. The executive power of the State being divided amongst various
functionaries under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India there is possibility
of lack of co-ordination amongst various limbs of the Government working
within their respective spheres of allocation. The object of regulating the
recruitment and conditions of Service by statutory provisions is to rule out2
(1991) 4 SCC 243
11
2025:JHHC:20778arbitrariness, provide consistency and crystallise the rights of employees
concerned. The statutory provisions which are unworkable and inoperative
cannot achieve these objectives. Such provisions are non-est till made
operational. It is the operative statutory provisions which have the effect of
ousting executive power of the State from the same field. When in a peculiar
situation, as in the present ease, the statutory provisions could not be operated
there was no bar for the State Government to act in exercise of its executive
power. The impugned notification to hold special selection was issued almost
four years after the enforcement of the Rules. It was done to remove stagnation
and to afford an opportunity to the eligible persons to enter the service. In our
view the State Government was justified in issuing the impugned notification in
exercise of its executive power and the High Court fell into error in quashing the
same.”
13. The Petitioners contended that when the rule itself
could not be implemented as a whole, it ought not to have
been applied at all, particularly when there existed a complete
and workable scheme for seniority determination based solely
on merit in the JPSC examination which was being followed
prior to implementation of the said Rules. They further
asserted that rather than acknowledging the illegality, the
Respondents proceeded to validate their action retrospectively
through a subsequent amendment to Rule 9 of the Jharkhand
State Police Service Rules, 2012 vide Memo No. 3808 dated
07.10.2020, by deleting the inclusion of district training
marks from Rule 9, thereby admitting the flaw.
It has also been argued by the Petitioners that upon
becoming aware of the provisional seniority list published as
on 01.01.2016, the Petitioners submitted separate
representations before the Respondents, highlighting their
objections to the seniority list; however, the objections were
turned down by the Respondents.
14. In response to the averments made in the writ
petition, the State of Jharkhand has filed a detailed counter
affidavit wherein it raised preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition, primarily on grounds of
delay and laches. It was contended that the Petitioners,
having been appointed in January 2016, had approached this
Court only in the year 2020, and thus the challenge to the
seniority lists issued in 2016, 2017, and 2018 was barred by
unexplained delay.
15. The State further argued that the seniority lists
were drawn based on the applicable Rule 9 of the Jharkhand
12
2025:JHHC:20778
State Police Service Rules, 2012, and that the entire batch of
candidates, including the Petitioners, were treated uniformly
based on marks received from two components being the
JPSC selection process and training at the Police Training
College.
It is the specific defence of the State that that
there were errors in Rules of 2012 to the extent that
candidates are not granted marks on completion of District
Training; rather they are granted certificate of successful
completion of District Training and hence, there was no
question of the marks obtained by the candidate at the end of
District Training being taken into consideration at the time of
preparation of seniority list.
16. It is admitted by the State in the affidavit that no
marks were awarded to any candidate for district training and
that this anomaly was subsequently realized and formally
addressed by amending Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules through
Notification No. 3808 dated 07.10.2020, whereby the
requirement of awarding district training marks was removed
altogether.
The case of the State is that this amendment was
clarificatory in nature and brought into effect in light of
administrative impracticability, and thus, the seniority lists
drawn without district training marks stood validated by such
amendment. The State seeks to sustain the seniority lists by
placing reliance on the collective uniformity of the process
and the subsequent amendment, which, in their view, cured
the procedural defect retrospectively.
17. The private respondents, who are similarly placed
officers belonging to the same batch as the petitioners and
whose relative positions in the impugned seniority lists would
be adversely affected if the petitioners’ prayers are allowed,
have also filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition.
They have strongly supported the stand taken by the State
and have argued that the writ petition is not only delayed but
also misconceived, as it seeks to reopen an issue which has
13
2025:JHHC:20778
now been settled by the amendment of Rule 9 of the 2012
Rules.
It has been contended by Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr.
Counsel appearing for the Private Respondents that the
seniority lists published from 2016 to 2018 were accepted by
the entire batch and formed the basis for further
administrative decisions, including promotions, transfers, and
posting orders, and therefore should not be disturbed at the
behest of a few disgruntled individuals.
18. Ld. Sr. Counsel has further submitted that the
Petitioners as well as the private Respondents had to go
through rigorous physical and written examination duly
conducted by the examining body consisting of senior IPS
Officers and Experts, after completing their training at Police
Training College, Hazaribagh wherein the Petitioners did not
do well and were consequently allotted lesser marks as
compared to the private Respondents.
It has further been submitted by the Ld. Sr.
Counsel that no marks for district training have been
awarded to anyone, be it the Petitioners or the Private
Respondents and as such, no illegality has been committed as
everyone is placed on an equal footing, without there being
any arbitrary action.
19. Ld. Senior Counsel has further argued that the
marks obtained at PTC, Hazaribagh have never been
challenged by the Petitioners and that they have approached
this Court only after finding that their names figured at a
lower position in the seniority lists and thus are merely
seeking to improve their ranking post facto without any
foundational illegality.
It has also been submitted that after successful
completion of training at Police Training Centre, Hazaribagh,
the Petitioners and the Private Respondents were sent for
district training which includes the training in relation to
basic policing, supervision of case, how to maintain law &
order situation etc. but this time neither the Petitioners nor
14
2025:JHHC:20778
the Private Respondents were allotted any marks and the
actions of the Respondent Department cannot be termed as
arbitrary & discriminatory as because the Respondent
Department maintained the same & similar standard for
everyone.
20. Ld. Senior Counsel has strenuously pressed that
the State has deleted the Rule 9(1)(iii) of the 2012 Rules
through Jharkhand Police Service (Amendment) Rules, 2020
and have published the final seniority list after taking into
consideration the Rule 9(1)(i)&(ii) of the Rules of 2012, which
action of the Respondent authorities is absolutely bona-fide
and in the interest of justice.
The Private Respondents have also raised legal
objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is their
specific stand that the claims raised by the Petitioners,
relating to evaluation methodology, exclusion of training
components, and alleged violation of Rule 9 are technical
service matters that fall within the exclusive domain of the
executive and ought not to be interfered with under writ
jurisdiction. It is contended that the Petitioners are seeking
judicial intervention into matters involving policy decisions,
service rule application, and administrative discretion. They
contended that the Petitioners’ challenge to the application of
Rule 9, as well as to the retrospective applicability of the
amendment dated 07.10.2020, is untenable in law and that
the writ petitions should be dismissed on the ground that no
legal or constitutional infirmity has been established.
21. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the pleadings, affidavits, annexures and
supplementary submissions filed by all sides, this Court is of
the considered view that the preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and
laches does not hold good in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. Although it is true that the initial seniority
list impugned in the writ petition was issued as early as on
01.01.2016 and the Petitioners have approached this Court in
15
2025:JHHC:20778
2020, it must be noted that the impugned action is not a one-
time measure but a continuing wrong, perpetuated through
successive seniority lists published in 2017, 2018 and
thereafter through the provisional list dated 11.01.2024. The
cause of action in this case is recurring and continuous in
nature; accordingly, the preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay is
not acceptable to this Court.
22. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case and the submissions made by the rival parties
coupled with the documents placed on record, the following
principal issues arise for adjudication in the present case:
(i) Whether the final merit list as prepared by JPSC or the
Jharkhand State Police Service Rules, 2012 would govern the
determination of seniority of the petitioners appointed
pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.09.2010 ?
(ii) Whether Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules, even if assumed to be
applicable, could have been validly implemented in a
truncated form, excluding district training marks, and
whether such partial application vitiates the seniority lists ?
(iii) Whether the amendment dated 07.10.2020, whereby the
State deleted the requirement of district training marks from
Rule 9, can be retrospectively applied to validate the seniority
lists already issued for earlier years ?
23. On the first issue, this Court finds considerable
merit in the contention of the Petitioners that the applicable
rule for determination of seniority must be the one which was
in force on the date the recruitment process was initiated. The
advertisement calling for applications for the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police was published on 11.09.2010, and it
is not in dispute that on that date the seniority of Dy. SPs was
determined solely on the basis of merit list as prepared by
JPSC.
The Jharkhand State Police Service Rules, 2012
were not in force at the time of the advertisement; rather the
said rules came into being and were made effective only from
16
2025:JHHC:20778
26.07.2012 which was after the Mains Examinations of the
Petitioner’s batch were over. Considering the same, allowing
seniority to be determined on the basis of a set of rules, which
came into being much after the recruitment process had
started, without any express intention of being retrospective
in application, is an illegality which this court cannot permit.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in P. Mohan Reddy
Vs. E.A.A. Charles and Others3 has already settled that
determination of seniority has to be in accordance with the
rules in force at the time when the employee was borne in the
cadre:
“17. A conspectus of the aforesaid decisions of this Court would indicate
that even though an employee cannot claim to have a vested right to have a
particular position in any grade, but all the same he has the right of his
seniority being determined in accordance with the Rules which remained in
force at the time when he was borne in the cadre. The question of re-
determination of the seniority in the cadre on the basis of any amended
criteria or Rules would arise only when the amendment in question is given
a retrospective effect. If the retrospectivity of the Rule is assailed by any
person then the Court would be entitled to examine the same and decide the
matter in accordance with the law. If the retrospectivity of the Rule is
ultimately struck down, necessarily the question of re-drawing of the
seniority list under the amended provisions would not arise, but if however,
the retrospectivity is up held by a Court then the seniority could be re-drawn
up in accordance with the amended provisions of the employees who are
still in the cadre and not those who have already got promotion to some
other cadre by that date. Further a particular Rule of seniority having been
considered by Court and some directions in relation thereto having been
given, that direction has to be followed in the matter of drawing up of the
seniority list until and unless a valid Rule by the Rule Making Authority
comes into existence and requires otherwise, as was done in Bola’s case
(supra). It may be further stated that if any Rule or Administrative
Instruction mandate drawing up of seniority list or determination of inter se
seniority within any specified period then the same must be adhered to
unless any valid reason is indicated for non- compliance of the same.”
24. The final select list published by the JPSC also
does not refer to the 2012 Rules. The Court therefore finds
that the rights of the Petitioners stood crystallized under the
legal regime prevailing at the time of the advertisement and
selection process, and in the absence of an express statutory
provision to the contrary; their seniority ought to have been
determined solely on the basis of merit list as prepared by
JPSC.
25. Even assuming for argument’s sake that the
Jharkhand State Police Service Rules, 2012 were applicable
3
(2001) 4 SCC 433
17
2025:JHHC:20778
to the Petitioners’ recruitment and subsequent determination
of seniority, this Court finds that Rule 9 of the said Rules was
never implemented in its entirety and could not have formed
a valid basis for fixing inter se seniority.
Rule 9, as originally framed, mandated that the
seniority of directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of
Police be determined on the basis of cumulative marks
obtained by a candidate in three components: i.e., (i) marks
awarded in the written examination conducted by the JPSC,
(ii) marks secured in the Police Training College, and (iii)
marks awarded during district training. This Court finds from
the records, particularly the RTI replies produced by the
Petitioners as well as from the Counter Affidavit filed by the
State, that no marks were awarded for the third component,
i.e., district training to any officer of the Petitioners’ batch.
This critical omission is not denied by the State; rather, it is
expressly admitted in the counter affidavit of the State that
there were errors in Rules of 2012 to the extent that
candidates are not granted marks on completion of District
Training; rather they were granted certificate of successful
completion of District Training.
26. This Court is of the considered view that a
statutory rule, once framed and notified, cannot be
implemented in a truncated or selective manner. Partial
application of Rule 9, without uniformly applying its threefold
criteria, defeats the very object and architecture of the Rule,
and leads to manifest arbitrariness. It is trite law that a rule
must either be applied in full; there exists no legal
justification to extract favourable portions of a rule while
disregarding the remainder.
In such a case, where the State itself admits its
failure to implement Rule 9 in totality, it cannot derive any
advantage from its defective application. Moreover, the
amendment carried out in Rule 9 by the State Government
18
2025:JHHC:20778
through Notification dated 07.10.2020, whereby the
component of district training marks was deleted, clearly
establishes that the Government recognised the defective
structure and sought to retrospectively cure the illegality.
However, the Court finds that the said amendment
is ex facie prospective in nature. There is no provision either
in the amending notification or in any enabling statute that
makes the amendment applicable to earlier recruitments or to
seniority lists already published prior to the amendment.
In the absence of such legislative intent, the
amendment cannot be applied retrospectively to validate a
process which was already defective at inception. The law is
well settled that executive instructions or amendments to
service rules cannot have retrospective effect unless the
statute so authorizes. Therefore, even under the 2012 Rules
framework, the seniority lists in question, being based on a
partially implemented and subsequently abandoned Rule 9,
are legally unsustainable.
27. The fundamental principle that governs service
jurisprudence is that the rights of candidates crystallize
under the Rule in force at the time of advertisement and
initiation of recruitment, unless otherwise stipulated by valid
legislation. Any deviation from the statutory mandate,
especially where it adversely affects promotional avenues and
service entitlements of civil servants, cannot be sustained in
the eye of law. The Respondents have failed to demonstrate
any legal authority to apply Rule 9 in part or to validate an
admitted illegality through a subsequent amendment which
lacks retrospective application.
28. As stated hereinabove, the contentions raised by
the State and Private Respondents regarding delay and
finality of service records are also without merit in view of the
continuing and recurring nature of the grievance and the
fresh cause of action arising from the 2024 provisional list.
19
2025:JHHC:20778
This Court is therefore constrained to interfere and to uphold
the Petitioners’ legitimate claim.
29. This Court now turns to the core relief sought by
the Petitioners, that their seniority should be re-fixed strictly
on the basis of merit determined by the marks obtained in the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) examination.
Having examined the applicable legal framework, the factual
sequence of events, and the competing submissions of the
parties, this Court finds substantial merit in the Petitioners’
claim.
As already noted, the advertisement for
recruitment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police
was issued on 11.09.2010, and at that time, the sole criteria
for determining seniority were the merit list as prepared by
JPSC.
No further components such as training marks,
whether from the Police Training College or District Training
were in usage for the purpose of fixing seniority. This is also
evident from the fact that in previous batches recruited under
the same Rules, seniority was consistently fixed on the basis
of JPSC rank alone.
30. Further, the State has also not brought on record
any notification or government order showing that the 2012
Rules were ever made applicable to the Petitioners’
recruitment process or appointments. In fact, as discussed
earlier, the 2012 Rules were not implemented in full and their
application was admittedly flawed.
The attempt of the State to justify the impugned
seniority lists by reference to a subsequently amended Rule 9
also fails, as the amendment has no retrospective effect and
cannot validate the original illegality.
20
2025:JHHC:20778
31. At this stage, it is also pertinent to deliberate the
Respondents’ argument that all candidates were treated
equally does not cure the violation of statutory norms or
justify the continued reliance on a flawed process. Equality in
illegality cannot be a defence. This Court therefore concludes
that the Petitioners’ seniority must be fixed exclusively on the
basis of the final marks obtained in the JPSC selection
process, and any list drawn in departure from this rule is
liable to be quashed.
32. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are allowed.
The seniority lists dated 01.01.2016, 01.01.2017, and
01.01.2018, and the provisional seniority list dated
11.01.2024 issued vide Memo No. 12/P5-1048/2014
(Khand)231/Ranchi, are hereby, quashed.
The Respondents are directed to re-fix the
seniority of the Petitioners/Private Respondents strictly in
accordance with the marks obtained in the JPSC examination
conducted pursuant to Advertisement dated 11.09.2010. The
Respondents shall carry out this exercise within a period of
sixteen weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of
this judgment. All consequential benefits arising from the
corrected seniority position, including consideration for
promotion, shall also be granted to the Petitioners in
accordance with law.
33. As a result, both these applications stand
disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/-
A.F.R.
21