Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited … vs Sujit Kumar Tiwari Aged About 34 Years on 15 July, 2025
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.371 of 2023
-----
1. The Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited through its
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Engineers
Building, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Jharkhand Urja Sancharan Nigam Limited,
through its Managing Director, Engineers Building,
HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The General Manager, Personnel-cum-General
Administration, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited,
Engineers Building, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, Ranchi.
4. The Deputy General Manager (HR), Jharkhand Urja
Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineers Building, HEC
Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
5. The Deputy General Manager (P), Jharkhand Urja
Vikas Nigam Limited, Engineers Building, HEC
Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
6. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer,
Transmission Zone-3, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand Urja
Sancharan Nigam Limited, Engineers Building, HEC
Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.
... ... Appellants/Respondents
Versus
Sujit Kumar Tiwari aged about 34 years, S/o: Birendra
Tiwari, R/O.: Rajlharsawa, Grid Sub-Station, P.O. &
P.S.: Barmadu, Dist.: Seraikella, State: Jharkhand
... ... Respondents/Writ Petitioner
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 30.06.2025 Pronounced on 15/07/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated
27.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.(S) No.4202 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the writ
1
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
petition has been allowed by quashing the order as
contained in Memo No.1387 dated 05.06.2018 with a
further direction upon the respondent to send the
petitioner on training.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made
in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated
read hereunder as :-
It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2008,
considering the acute shortage of technical manpower, the
office of the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer,
Transmission Zone-3, Jamshedpur invited applications for
appointment on contractual basis to the post of Junior
Electrical Engineer/ Asst. Operator. In response to which,
the petitioner having the requisite qualification, has
submitted his application along with the required
certificates and testimonials for appointment to the said
post.
Thereafter, the respondent No. 6, after scrutiny of
the application of the petitioner, recommended his name
along with other eligible candidates for contractual
appointment vide letter dated 30.07.2008. Thereafter, the
office of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer,
Transmission Zone-3, Jamshedpur vide office order no. 94
dated 21.10.2008 deployed as many as 33 technical
2
2025:JHHC:19241-DBpersons including the petitioner in various grid sub-station
and considering the work performance of the petitioner, the
respondents extended his services on contractual basis
from time to time.
It is the further case of the petitioner that while he
was working under the respondent-department on
contractual basis, the respondent came out with
Employment Notification No. 03/2016 for regular
appointment of technical persons on various posts.
All the posts have been categorized in two groups
namely Assistant Engineer and Technical Staff. Under the
Technical Staff group, there were four posts namely,
Assistant Operator, SBO-Gr.-II, Junior Lineman and Fitter,
Gr.-II and except for the post of Fitter Gr.-II, the required
technical qualification of the other posts was almost same
with a slight variation for the post of Assistant Operator,
wherein the candidates with higher qualification were also
eligible to apply.
The petitioner having vast experience being engaged
on the post of Switch Board Operator on contractual basis
since last 8 years and also being eligible in all respect,
applied for regular appointment in terms of the said
advertisement. Thereafter, the petitioner along with other
eligible candidates appeared in the written examination and
interview and finally selected for the post of Switch Board
3
2025:JHHC:19241-DBOperator Gr.-II. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 vide office
order dated 25.05.2018, issued a list of newly appointed
candidates while attaching them to different circle office for
the post job training. The respondents further directed all
the selected candidates to report for joining at Kusai
Colony, Doranda Ranchi on 27.05.2018.
Accordingly, the petitioner reported for joining but
the respondents did not allow him to join and orally
informed that as the educational qualification of the
petitioner is different from the required qualification, his
appointment cannot be made and it has been cancelled.
Aggrieved by non-acceptance of joining, the
petitioner alongwith one other similarly situated candidate
represented before the respondent no. 1, however, nothing
was done on the same.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that after
completion of entire selection process and issuance of
appointment letter, the respondents without giving any
opportunity of hearing or without issuing any show-cause,
vide order bearing memo no. 1387 dated 05.06.2018,
cancelled the appointment/ candidature of six persons on
different grounds. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the
respondents are taking the ground that petitioner does not
possess the requisite qualification for appointment to the
4
2025:JHHC:19241-DBpost of Switch Board Operator though he was working on
the said post for last 8 years on contractual basis.
Aggrieved by the order of cancellation dated
05.06.2018, petitioner has knocked the door of this Court
for redressal of his grievances.
The respondents have appeared and filed counter
affidavit wherein they have taken the ground that the
petitioner should have applied for the post of Assistant
Operator only as he has done diploma in Electrical
Engineering and not ITI.
The ground has also been taken that petitioner had
given false information in his online application form that
he holds eligibility for all the three posts viz. Assistant
Operator, SBO Gr. II and JLM but at the time of document
verification, it was found by the committee that the
petitioner was not in possession of requisite qualification
and rightly his candidature was cancelled.
Moreover, the cut off marks for the post of Assistant
Operator is 68.80 in unreserved category whereas the
marks obtained by the petitioner is 63 only, therefore, the
petitioner was not selected for the post of Assistant
Operator.
The respondents have also taken the ground that
petitioner is diploma holder and as such, he was eligible for
the post of Assistant Operator only but the petitioner
5
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
misled the respondents by mentioning his qualification as
ITI Electrician and applied for all the three posts which is
highly unethical.
Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has
allowed the writ petition by quashing the order as
contained in Memo No.1387 dated 05.06.2018 with a
further direction upon the respondent to send the
petitioner on training.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents
have filed the instant appeal.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that in
pursuance to Employment Notification No. 03/2016 the
writ petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant
Operator, SBO-Gr.-II and Junior Lineman. Thereafter, the
petitioner along with other eligible candidates appeared in
the written examination and interview and finally selected
for the post of Switch Board Operator Gr.-II. The writ
petitioner has been appointed but subsequent thereto, his
appointment has been cancelled vide order dated
05.06.2018 on the ground that petitioner does not possess
the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of
Switch Board Operator Gr.-II.
4. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the
aforesaid order dated 05.06.2018, has approached to this
Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4202 of 2018
6
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
by raising the ground that he is having Diploma in
Electrical Engineering and, as such, he even though having
higher qualification as required for the post of Assistant
Operator or SBO-Gr.-II or Junior Lineman, and although he
has been appointed, but subsequent thereto, the
appointment has been cancelled by the impugned order.
5. The contention has been raised that when he is
having the higher qualification than the qualification as
reflected in the advertisement, the cancellation of
appointment cannot be said to be just and proper.
Therefore, it has been contended that the aforesaid aspect
of the matter has been considered by the learned Single
Judge and hence, the writ petition has been allowed and,
as such, the impugned judgment cannot be said to suffer
from an error.
6. While on the other hand, the respondent-JUVNL
has taken the ground that the single post, as has been
referred in Sl. No.7, which is the post of Assistant Operator
for which the equivalence clause is there, i.e., a candidate
should possess trade Certificate as Electrician from an ITI
and should have experience of at least one year in the job
post qualification. Candidates with higher qualification
may also apply for this post only.
7. The contention, therefore, has been raised that the
benefit of the higher educational qualification, if being
7
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
possessed by one or the other candidates, is only applicable
for the post of Assistant Operator, referred in Sl. No.7 of the
advertisement.
8. The same is not the condition so far as the post of
SBO-Gr.-II or Junior Lineman are concerned. The
prescribed qualification for SBO-Gr.-II as mentioned in the
advertisement is that a candidate should possess trade
certificate as Electrician from an ITI and should have
experience of at least one year in the job post qualification
whereas for the post of Junior Lineman, a candidate should
have passed suitable trade course as Electrician/Wireman
from a recognized ITI & possess at least one year experience
in the job post qualification.
9. The submission has been made that the
consideration of the candidature of the candidate was there
so far as the post of Assistant Operator is concerned
wherein on the basis of higher educational qualification of
Diploma, the candidature of the petitioner has been
considered but since he has got lesser marks, i.e., 63.00
than the last selected candidate who has secured 68.80,
hence he has not been selected as Assistant Operator.
While, for the post of SBO Gr.II or Junior Lineman his
candidature has not been considered since he was not
having the prescribed qualification of ITI as required to be
there in the advertisement.
8
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
10. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the
rival submissions, has allowed the writ petition by
quashing the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 with a
further direction upon the respondent to send the
petitioner on training on the ground that decision so taken
by the respondent authorities is absolutely improper.
11. The said order is under challenge in the instant
appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/appellants:
12. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-respondent, while assailing the impugned
order/judgment has taken the following grounds which
according to the learned counsel for the appellant has not
properly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge:-
(i) The petitioner had given false information in his
online application form that he holds eligibility for all
the three posts viz. Assistant Operator, SBO Gr. II and
JLM but at the time of document verification, it was
found by the committee that the petitioner was not in
possession of requisite qualification.
(ii) The petitioner should have applied for the post of
Assistant Operator only as he has done diploma in
Electrical Engineering and not ITI and for that post,
the equivalence clause is there, i.e., a candidate
9
2025:JHHC:19241-DBshould possess trade Certificate as Electrician from an
ITI and should have experience of at least one year in
the job post qualification. Candidates with higher
qualification may also apply for this post only. The
same is not the condition so far as the post of SBO-
Gr.-II or Junior Lineman are concerned.
(iii) The consideration of the candidature of the candidate
was there so far as the post of Assistant Operator is
concerned wherein on the basis of higher educational
qualification of Diploma, the candidature of the
petitioner has been considered but since he has got
lesser marks, i.e., 63.00 than the last selected
candidate who has secured 68.80, hence he has not
been selected as Assistant Operator.
(iv) The cut off marks for the post of Assistant Operator is
68.80 in unreserved category whereas the marks
obtained by the petitioner is 63 only.
(v) The learned Single Judge has also not given a specific
finding as to what led him to interfere with the
impugned order save and except making reference of
the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Raj
Kumar Bhadani Vs. JUVNL & Others [W.P.(S)
No.7183 of 2016].
(vi) The submission has been made that even the fact of
the case of Raj Kumar Bhadani Vs. JUVNL &
10
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
Others (Supra) has not been taken into consideration
so as to come to conclusion that as to whether the
said judgment is applicable in the facts of the present
case or not.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, based
upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the
order/judgment passed by the learned Single Judge,
suffers from an error, therefore, needs interference.
Submission made by learned counsel appearing for the
writ petitioner/respondent
14. Per contra, Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, learned
counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondent, has
taken the following grounds in defending the impugned
judgment: –
(i) The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration
the fact that the petitioner is Diploma in Electrical and
as such possess better/higher qualification than ITI in
Electrical. Moreover, the petitioner had given first
preference to the post of Assistant Operator and there
is clear mention that candidates with higher
qualification may also apply for the said post.
(ii) The learned Single Judge has also taken into
consideration that on the same certificate of Diploma
in Electrical the respondents have given contractual
appointment to the petitioner on the same post and in
11
2025:JHHC:19241-DBfact have taken the services of the petitioner as for
about 10 years.
(iii) The order passed by the learned Single Judge is solely
on the premise that the writ petitioner is having
higher qualification than the qualification as reflected
in the advertisement, therefore, the cancellation of
appointment cannot be said to be just and proper.
(iv) Learned counsel, in addition thereto, has also taken
the ground that the writ petitioner has worked on the
post of Assistant Operator for about 10 years and he
has been retained in service for the aforesaid period
even though he was having no ITI, rather, he is
holding the Diploma in Electrical but without
appreciating the aforesaid fact, now the contrary point
is being raised showing the writ petitioner to be
ineligible to hold the post.
15. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that the impugned judgment, therefore,
needs no interference.
16. In response to the argument that the writ petitioner
has been retained in service for 10 years as Assistant
Operator, the contention has been raised on behalf of the
appellant that the reason for retaining the writ petitioner in
service as Assistant Operator is the availability of the
educational qualification for the said post as would be
12
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
evident from the advertisement itself wherein it has been
stipulated that the higher educational qualification can also
be considered.
17. Based upon the certificate of Diploma in Electrical,
the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant
Operator has been considered but since he has got lesser
marks than the last selected candidate for the aforesaid
post, he has not been selected.
18. So far as remaining two posts are concerned, since
the writ petitioner is not holding ITI certificate, hence his
candidature has not been considered.
19. It has also been contended that specific pleading
has been made in the counter affidavit as under paragraph
11 wherein it has been stated that the writ petitioner has
tried to mislead the respondent by giving false information
in his online application by claiming eligibility for all the
three posts i.e., Assistant Operator, SBO Gr.II and Junior
Lineman but at the time of document verification, the
Committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose, pointed
out the aforesaid fact at the time of joining and his
candidature was subsequently cancelled.
Analysis
20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone
through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in
13
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
the impugned judgment as also the pleading made on
behalf of the parties before the writ court.
21. The undisputed fact of this case is that the
petitioner is having the educational qualification of Diploma
in Electrical. He was working as Assistant Operator on
contract basis. The advertisement was published inviting
applications for consideration of candidature of one or the
other candidates for different posts including the posts of
Assistant Operator, SBO Gr.II and Junior Lineman, the
posts for which the writ petitioner has made his application
for consideration of his candidature.
22. The advertisement provides the following
educational qualification for the aforesaid three posts, for
ready reference the same is being referred hereunder as :-
Sl. No. Name of post Prescribed qualification
7 Asstt. Operator Should possess trade Certificate as
Electrician from an ITI and should
have experience of at least one
year in the job post qualification.
Candidates with higher
qualification may also apply for
this post only.
8 SBO Gr.-II Should possess trade Certificate as
Electrician from an ITI and should
have experience of at least one
year in the job post qualification.
9 Jr. Line Man Should have passed suitable trade
course as Electrician/Wireman
from a recognized ITI & possess at
least one year experience in the job
post qualification.
23. The educational qualification as referred
hereinabove, extracted from the advertisement, which is
appended at page 73 of the paperbook (Annexure-5 to the
14
2025:JHHC:19241-DBwrit petition) wherefrom it is evident that for the post of
Assistant Operator a candidate should possess trade
Certificate as Electrician from an ITI and should have
experience of at least one year in the job post qualification
and further the candidates with higher qualification may
also apply for this post only. However, for the post of SBO
Gr.-II the qualification prescribed is a candidate should
possess trade Certificate as Electrician from an ITI and
should have experience of at least one year in the job post
qualification whereas for the post of Junior Line Man a
candidate should have passed suitable trade course as
Electrician/Wireman from a recognized ITI & possess at
least one year experience in the job post qualification.
24. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has made
online application by giving information claiming eligibility
for all the posts to that effect specific pleading has been
made in the counter affidavit as under paragraph-11, for
ready reference the same is being referred hereunder as :-
“11. That in reply to averments made in para-1 (c) of
the writ petition under reply, it is stated and
submitted that the Petitioner should have applied for
the post of Assistant Operator only as he has done
diploma in Electrical Engineering and not ITI. The
Petitioner tried to mislead the Respondents by
giving false information in his online application
form claiming eligibility for all the three post viz.
Assistant Operator, SBO Gr. II verification & JLM.
The document committee pointed out this fact at the15
2025:JHHC:19241-DBtime of joining and his candidature was subsequently
cancelled. Moreover, the cutoff marks for the post of
Assistant/Operator is 68.80 in un-reserved category
and the marks obtained by the Petitioner is 63.00.
Therefore, the Petitioner was not selected for the post
of Assistant Operator.”
25. Although response has been give to the said
paragraph by the writ petitioner, but the same cannot be
said to be a satisfactory response.
26. The advertisement also clarifies that the application
was to be made by one or the other candidates through
online mode by giving true disclosure and in absence of
true disclosure, the application is to be rejected outrightly.
27. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner is having
Diploma in Electrical. The other admitted fact is that for the
post of Assistant Operator, apart from ITI certificate holder
the candidate having the higher educational qualification
can also participate in the process of selection but the
aforesaid condition has not been stipulated for the purpose
of consideration of the candidature of one or the other
candidates for the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man,
rather, the ITI certificate holder and one year experience on
the job post have been prescribed.
28. It has been stated in paragraph-11 of the counter
affidavit, as referred hereinabove, that the candidature of
the writ petitioner for the post of Assistant Operator, based
upon which he claims that he was appointed on contract
16
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
basis and retained for 10 years, had been considered but
he has not been found to be meritorious in comparison to
other candidates since he obtained 63.00 marks while the
last selected candidate has secured 68.80 marks in
unreserved category.
29. The candidature of the writ petitioner for the post of
Assistant Operator was considered on the basis of the
educational qualification possessed by the writ petitioner,
i.e., Diploma in Electrical, in view of the condition
stipulated therein to the effect that the candidature of the
candidate having the higher educational qualification will
also be considered. But, so far as the post of SBO Gr.-II
and Jr. Line Man are concerned, the candidature of the
candidate as per the condition stipulated in the
advertisement is only to be considered of such candidate
who are having ITI certificate and experience of one year in
the job post qualification.
30. The admitted position is that the petitioner is
having no ITI certificate, rather, he is Diploma in Electrical.
Therefore, the candidature of the writ petitioner for the post
of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man has been considered
considering the approach of the writ petitioner to be
misleading one, since he claims to have educational
qualification as per the condition stipulated in the
17
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
advertisement also for the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line
Man.
31. The candidature of the petitioner when rejected,
then he approached to the High Court by filing writ petition
by taking the ground that since he is having higher
qualification, as such, he ought to have been appointed
either on the post of SBO Gr.-II or Jr. Line Man and to
strengthen his argument, the judgment rendered by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the Chandra Shekhar Singh and
Others v. The State of Jharkhand and Others [Civil
Appeal No(s). 10389 of 2024] has been relied upon.
32. This Court, in the aforesaid pretext, is now
proceeding to assess the legality and propriety of the
impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
33. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the
learned Single Judge has given its finding at paragraph-9,
for ready reference, the aforesaid consideration which led
the learned Single Judge in interfering with the impugned
order is being referred herein :-
“9. Be that as it may, having heard the rival submissions of
the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on
record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of
the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and
reasons:
(I) The issue involved in the present writ application has
already been adjudicated upon by this Court in a
similar matter i.e. W.P.(S). No. 7183 of 2016 (Raj
Kumar Bhadani Vs. JUVNL & Ors.) and the18
2025:JHHC:19241-DBrespondents have not come out with a new reasoning
which requires interference by this Court.
(II) The appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in
most mechanical manner without assigning any cogent
reasons, which is not acceptable to this Court and is fit
to be quashed and set.
(III) It was neither pleaded by the respondents that
respondent-JUVNL under a bonafide mistake offered
appointment as Switch Board Operator nor it has been
argued that qualification of ITI Electrician under
Employment No. 03 of 2016 is substantially different
from the qualification sought for the said post under
earlier advertisement for contractual appointment.
(IV) The contention of learned counsel for the respondents
that at relevant point of time, the certificates were not
examined and verified, is totally misconceived. This
court in WP(S) 7183 of 2016 has held in para-7 that:
“7. …………………. after having verified the
petitioner’s trade certificate and on being satisfied
that he possesses the requisite qualification,
appointed him on 14.06.2007. At the time of
making application pursuant to Employment
Notification No. 02 of 2015, he had experience of 8
years and 2 months under respondent-JBVNL.
Now, the respondents have taken a stand that the
petitioner does not fulfill the prescribed
qualification. In my opinion, once a candidate
attains post-job one year’s experience qualification
and, that too, under the same employer, he must
be held eligible for the said post in the subsequent
selection exercise unless, it is pleaded that the
prescribed qualification in the subsequent
Employment Notification is substantially different.
Insistence of the respondent-JUVNL on producing a
certification of equivalence of trade certificate from
Department of Labour, Employment Training and
Skill Development was wholly unwarranted.19
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
8. The Certificate dated 01.03.2016 produced by
the petitioner records that persons holding Trade
Certificate in Electronics are competent to perform
the work of Electrician. Job profile of SBO does not
require some special knowledge as Electrician
which a person holding Trade Certificate in
Electronics cannot possess.”
The said observation and opinion of learned Single
Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in
LPA No. 454 of 2017.”
34. The first consideration is based upon the judgment
passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No. 7183 of 2016 (Raj
Kumar Bhadani Vs. JUVNL & Ors.) but it is evident that
the factual aspect of the said judgment has not been dealt
with and the applicability of the judgment has been found
to be there by the learned Single Judge.
35. We, in order to go through the applicability of the
order passed in W.P.(S) No.7183 of 2016 (Raj Kumar
Bhadani Vs. JUVNL & Ors.), have gone through the factual
aspect of the said case. The facts involved in W.P.(S)
No.7183 of 2016 is enumerated herein :-
The petitioner was appointed as Switch Board
Operator pursuant to the Employment Notice No. 01/2006.
His appointment was on contract as Trainee SBO. The
contract was initially for one year which was subsequently
extended from time to time. The respondent-JUVNL issued
Employment Notification No.02/2015 for appointment on
different posts for filling up temporary technical posts for
20
2025:JHHC:19241-DBits subsidiary companies namely, JBVNL, JUSNL and
JUUNL. The petitioner submitted online application on
10.05.2015 for the post of SBO Gr.-II. Selection procedure
involved written test and interview. Candidates having
working experience exceeding required maximum three
years’ experience were provided experience preference by
according weightage of 1.5 marks for each completed
additional six months of experience, however, subject to a
maximum of 15 marks. The petitioner was declared
qualified in the written examination held on 08.11.2015.
Appointment letter dated 30.01.2016 for his provisional
appointment on the post of SBO Grade-II was issued. He
submitted a certification dated 01.03.2016 from
Department of Labour, Employment Training and Skill
Development in respect of equivalence of certificate. By an
order dated 03.03.2016 he was deployed for on job training
and on completion of training he remained posted at
Dabargram, Deoghar where, he was served a copy of order
dated 23.08.2016, whereby his appointment has been
cancelled.
36. It is evident that the factual aspect involved in the
case of Raj Kumar Bhadani (Supra) is different to that of
the present case since he was sent on the job training and
after completion of training, he was posted at Dabargram,
Deoghar where, he was served a copy of order dated
21
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
23.08.2016, whereby his appointment has been cancelled
whereas in the present case, the writ petitioner was not
allowed to join the post.
37. Further in W.P.(S) No.7183 of 2016, the condition
prescribed in the advertisement was that a candidate
should possess ITI certificate in Electrical and the writ
petitioner of that case was possessing the ITI certificate but
not in Electrical, rather, in Electronics. In this regard, the
writ petitioner submitted a certificate dated 01.03.2016
issued by the Director, Employment and Training, Govt. of
Jharkhand stating that qualification of ITI Electronics is
similar to that of ITI Electrician. Here, in the instant case,
the writ petitioner is not holding the ITI certificate as
prescribed in the advertisement.
38. The second ground has been taken that the
appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled in most
mechanical manner without assigning any cogent reason
which is not acceptable to this Court and fit to be quashed
and set aside. But the learned Single Judge, while doing so,
has completely ignored the pleading made by the appellant
JUVNL at paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit filed in the
writ petition showing the reason of non-selection on the
post of Assistant Operator and non-consideration of his
candidature to the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man.
22
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
39. The third reason has been assigned that it was
neither pleaded by the respondent that the JUVNL under a
bona fide mistake offered appointment as Switch Board
Operator nor it has been argued that qualification of trade
certificate from ITI under Advertisement No.3/2016 is
substantially different from the qualification sought for the
said post under earlier advertisement for contractual
appointment.
40. The learned Single Judge without coming to the
said reason, has not appreciated again the averment made
in paragraph-11 to the counter affidavit wherein the
reasons have been assigned for non-consideration of the
candidature of the respondent-writ petitioner for the post of
SBO Gr.-II and Jr. Line Man as also declaring the writ
petitioner to be unsuccessful due to securing lesser marks
so far as post of Assistant Operator is concerned.
41. The learned Single Judge has also not appreciated
that earlier the appointment of writ petitioner on contract
was not on the basis of any advertisement which has been
admitted by the writ petitioner which is evident from a
communication dated 30.07.2008 as available on page 68
which is not based upon any advertisement.
42. The fourth reason has been assigned by negating
the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that at
23
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
the relevant point of time the certificates were not examined
and verified, is totally misconceived.
43. Again the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court
in case of Anand Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2850 of 2020) has
been considered by the learned writ court wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “we may also notice
another important aspect, i.e., the employer ultimately being
the best judge of who should be appointed. The choice was
of respondent No. 2. who sought the assistance of an expert
committee in view of the representation of some of the
appellants. The eminence of the expert committee is apparent
from its composition. That committee, after examination,
opined in favour of the stand taken by the appellants, and
respondent No. 2 as employer decided to concur with the
same and accepted the committee’s opinion. It is really not
for the appellants or the contesting respondent to contend
how and in what manner a degree should be obtained,
which would make them eligible for appointment by
respondent No. 2”.
44. But, this Court has failed to understand that what
is the nexus of such stipulation made at paragraph-11 of
the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in
the facts of the present case.
24
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
45. The ground has also been referred at paragraph-12
that the order impugned was passed without issuing any
show cause notice or without hearing the petitioner but
while coming to the aforesaid finding, the learned Single
Judge has not appreciated again the averment made at
paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit as also the settled
position of law, i.e., if there is no chance of change in the
outcome in consequence of the enquiry, then for what
purpose the show cause is to be given. Since show cause is
not to be given merely for formality, rather, opportunity of
hearing is to be given if there is chance of change in the
final outcome after such decision being taken. If there is
not chance of change in the outcome, then merely for the
purpose of following the principle of natural justice, the
show cause is not required, reference in this regard be
made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner,
Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. & Others [(2004) 4 SCC
281] wherein at paragraph 64 it has been observed which
is quoted hereunder:-
64. … … Rules of natural justice are to be followed for
doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual
of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of
the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by
us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases
in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.
25
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
46. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dharampal
Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise,
Gauhati & Ors. [(2015) 8 SCC 519] has taken similar
view at paragraph 45 which reads as under:-
“45. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles in mind, even
when we find that there is an infraction of principles of
natural justice, we have to address a further question as to
whether any purpose would be served in remitting the case
to the authority to make fresh demand of amount
recoverable, only after issuing notice to show cause to the
appellant. In the facts of the present case, we find that such
an exercise would be totally futile having regard to the law
laid down by this Court in R.C. Tobacco [(2005) 7 SCC 725].”
47. Exactly same is the factual aspect herein also,
since, the writ petitioner is knowing the fact that he has no
educational qualification of ITI in Electrical and in that view
of the matter even if show cause would have been issued,
then also there was no occasion for the writ petitioner to
dispute the fact in view of the admitted fact of having no ITI
certificate in Electrical. Therefore, even if should cause
notice would have been issued there was no chance of
change in the outcome of the decision so taken by the
respondent-JUVNL.
48. Hence, in the facts of the aforesaid situation,
issuance of show cause notice will only be a futile exercise.
49. So far as the judgment upon which the reliance has
been placed on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner
rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra
26
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
Shekhar Singh and Others v. The State of Jharkhand
and Others [Civil Appeal No(s). 10389 of 2024] is
concerned, we have gone through the factual aspect of the
said judgment, for ready reference the said fact is being
referred herein :-
The appellants of that case have the qualifications
of post-graduation in science with microbiology, food and
technology subjects. They applied for the post of FSO in
pursuance of the Advertisement No. 01/2016 issued by the
JPSC wherein the educational qualification for the said post
was stipulated that a Degree in Food Technology or Dairy
Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or
Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry
or Microbiology or Master Degree in Chemistry or Degree in
Medicine from a Recognized University. The appellants were
declared successful in the written examination and were
called for interviews by JPSC, however, during the course of
recruitment process, they were disqualified on the ground
that the Master’s degree possessed by the appellants could
not be treated as a valid educational qualification for the
purpose of selection to the post of FSO in the State of
Jharkhand.
50. It is evident from the said factual aspect therein
that under the condition of advertisement pertaining to
educational qualification for the post of Food Safety Officer,
27
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
the following condition has been stipulated in the statute,
the same is being referred herein :-
“A Degree in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or
Biotechnology or Oil Technology or Agriculture
Science or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry or
Microbiology or Master Degree in Chemistry or Degree
in Medicine from a Recognized University.”
51. It is evident from the educational qualification as
referred therein that a degree in Food Technology or Dairy
Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or
Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry
or Microbiology or Master Degree in Chemistry or Degree in
Medicine from a Recognized University was stipulated.
52. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the governing fact of the
said case, has directed to consider the candidature of the
appellants by holding that the appellants, who possessed
post-graduate degrees in subjects covered under Clause
2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules, were definitely and
unquestionably qualified for the post of FSO under the
subject advertisement.
53. It is thus evident that even the Hon’ble Apex Court
has gone into the issue of condition stipulated in Clause
2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules wherein there is no reference
of degree only in one subject, rather, reference of different
subjects have been given.
54. While examining the condition stipulated in the
advertisement in question herein of the present case, it is
28
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
evident that save and except the post of Assistant Operator
the equivalence clause is there of the better educational
qualification while for rest of the two posts, i.e. SBO Gr.-II
and Jr. Line Man, the application only to be accepted of the
candidates having the ITI certificate holder with experience
of one year in the job post qualification.
55. But, herein, in the advertisement, the reference of
only ITI certificate is there for the post of SBO Gr.-II and Jr.
Line Man, hence the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others
v. The State of Jharkhand and Others (Supra) in the
facts of the present case is not applicable.
56. It is settled position of law that the applicability of
the judgment is to be tested on the basis of the factual
aspect involved in the case as has been settled by Hon’ble
Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors., (2014) 5 SCC 75, paragraph-47 of
the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow :-
“47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any
decision must be understood in the background of the
facts of that case and the case is only an authority for
what it actually decides, and not what logically follows
from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions
without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in
with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance
is placed.”
57. We have also considered the judgment passed by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather
29
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
and Others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and Others
[(2019) 2 SCC 404]. The factual aspect involved therein is
being referred hereunder as :-
By a Government Order dated 04.12.1996, 23,297
posts were created in various departments of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir. 5330 fresh posts were created in the
Power Development Department, including among them
3675 posts of Technician III and 200 posts of Junior
Engineer. The qualification for the post of Technician III
was “Matric with ITI”. The qualification for the post of
Junior Engineer, which ranks higher in the hierarchy of
posts, was a BE (electrical)/diploma (electrical).
On 23.02.2013, an advertisement was issued by the
Jammu and Kashmir State Service Selection Board (SSSB)
for filling up the posts of Technician III in the Power
Development Department for various districts including
Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal. For the post of
Technician III in the Power Development Department, the
prescribed qualification was Matric with ITI in relevant
trade.
On 14-8-2014, a list of disqualified candidates was
notified by the SSSB. The appellants were not part of that
list and were called for a written test on 23.08.2014. On
20.11.2014, a Notification was issued for the purpose of
shortlisting candidates who had cleared the written test, for
30
2025:JHHC:19241-DBthe interview. Interviews were conducted at which the
appellants appeared. A select list was published on
23.04.2015. The appellants were not included in the select
list. The reason for the omission is that none of them
possessed an ITI qualification. Aggrieved by their non-
inclusion, the appellants instituted writ proceedings
seeking consideration of their candidature for selection to
the post of Technician III on the basis of their position in
the merit list. The appellants sought the quashing of the
select list framed for the three districts without considering
their position in merit and desired the reframing of the
select list.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions
on the ground that it was not open to the SSSB to exclude
the appellants after the process of selection was set in
motion and they had been subjected to a written test as
well as an interview. In the view of the learned Single
Judge, the rules could not have been changed after the
selection process had been initiated, particularly since the
list of disqualified candidates did not include them. The
learned Single Judge noted that a candidate possessing a
Diploma-Electrical is entitled to appointment to the post of
Junior Engineer which ranks higher than the post of
Technician III. Hence, in this line of reasoning, if the
appellants were eligible to hold a higher post, their
31
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
qualification was adequate for the post of Technician III and
a Diploma in Electrical Engineering presupposes the
acquisition of the lower qualification of Matric with ITI.
In the letters patent appeals which were filed before
the High Court, the Division Bench reversed the judgment
of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench held that
the advertisement mandated an ITI in the relevant trade as
a condition of eligibility and the SSSB had not granted any
weightage to a higher qualification, in terms of Note 12.
Moreover, the SSSB had categorically taken a decision on
31-1-2015 that it was only an ITI in the relevant trade with
a Matric qualification that meets the prescribed
qualifications.
58. We have gone through paragraph 26 of the said
judgment wherein the judgment passed in the case of Jyoti
K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15
SCC 596 as also the judgment rendered in the case of State
of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 have been taken
into consideration.
59. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the
decision rendered in the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission (Supra), has found that the
said judgment was on the provision of Rule 10(a)(ii) and has
observed that absent such a rule, it would not be
permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification
32
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit
lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a
post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the
employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a
condition of eligibility, for ready reference paragraph-26 of
the said judgment is being referred hereunder as :-
“26. We are in respectful agreement with the
interpretation which has been placed on the
judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public
Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596] in the
subsequent decision in Anita [State of
Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170]. The decision
in Jyoti K.K. turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii).
Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to
draw an inference that a higher qualification
necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another,
albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of
qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment
policy. The State as the employer is entitled to
prescribe the qualifications as a condition of
eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of
judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the
prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a
qualification is not a matter which can be determined
in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a
particular qualification should or should not be
regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as
the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision
in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which
the holding of a higher qualification could presuppose
the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence
of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial
difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the33
2025:JHHC:19241-DBmatter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor
Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on
12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in
reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad
Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of
the learned Single Judge and in coming to the
conclusion that the appellants did not meet the
prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the
decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather,
LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017
(J&K)] of the Division Bench.”
60. It is, thus, evident from the judgment rendered in
the case of Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission (Supra) that the settled position of law has
been taken into consideration that the condition as
provided in the advertisement is strictly to be adhered to
and there cannot be any deviation from the same, reference
in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. High Court
of Delhi & Another, reported in AIR 2010 SC 3714,
wherein, at paragraph-13, it has been held as under:-
“13. In Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa [(1987) 4
SCC 646] this Court considered the Orissa Judicial
Service Rules which did not provide for prescribing the
minimum cut-off marks in interview for the purpose of
selection. This Court held that in absence of the
enabling provision for fixation of minimum marks in
interview would amount to amending the Rules itself.
While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance
upon its earlier judgments in B.S. Yadav v. State of
Haryana [1980 Supp SCC 524] , P.K. Ramachandra Iyer
v. Union of India [(1984) 2 SCC 141] and Umesh
Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC],34
2025:JHHC:19241-DBwherein it had been held that there was no “inherent
jurisdiction” of the Selection Committee/Authority to lay
down such norms for selection in addition to the
procedure prescribed by the Rules. Selection is to be
made giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions
and if such power i.e. “inherent jurisdiction” is claimed,
it has to be explicit and cannot be read by necessary
implication for the obvious reason that such deviation
from the Rules is likely to cause irreparable and
irreversible harm.”
61. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi & Ors.,
reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548, wherein, at paragraph-8, it
has been held as under:-
“8. …. …. …. Deviation from the rules allows entry to
ineligible persons and deprives many others who could
have competed for the post. Merely because in the past
some deviation and departure was made in considering
the BEd candidates and we are told that was so done
because of the paucity of TTC candidates, we cannot
allow a patent illegality to continue. …. …. ….”
62. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Anit
Kumar Das, reported in (2021) 12 SCC 80, has held at
paragraph-17.1 as under:-
“17.1. In Yogesh Kumar [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548], it is observed and held by
this Court that recruitment to public service should be
held strictly in accordance with the terms of
advertisement and the recruitment rules, if any.
Deviation from the rules allows entry to ineligible
persons and deprives many others who could have
competed for the post.”
35
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
63. The qualification prescribed in the advertisement for
the post of Assistant Operator is that a candidate should
possess trade certificate in ITI Electrician and in addition to
the same, the candidate having higher qualification may
also apply for this post only
64. So far as the post of Assistant Operator is
concerned, the candidature of the writ petitioner was
accepted but since he has got lesser marks than the last
selected candidate and, as such, he has been declared to be
disqualified.
65. But for the other two posts, i.e., SBO Gr.-II and
Junior Line Man, there is no condition stipulated in the
advertisement, rather, the advertisement strictly stipulates
to consider the candidature of the candidate having ITI in
Electrical only.
66. This Court, having discussed the factual as well as
the legal position and based upon the reason as referred
hereinabove, is of the view that the order passed by learned
Single Judge needs interference.
67. Accordingly, order/judgment dated 27.09.2021
passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4202 of 2018
is hereby quashed and set aside.
68. The appeal stands allowed.
69. In consequence thereof, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
36
2025:JHHC:19241-DB
70. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also
stands disposed of.
I agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Birendra/A.F.R.
37