Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Nishi Kant Ranjan S/o Late Arvind Sharma – Appellant
Versus
National Dairy Development Board, through its Chairman – Respondent
W.P. (S) No. 6338 of 2017
Decided On : 13-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Manoj Tandon, Siddharth Ranjan, Neha Bhardwaj, Akansha, Shivani Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Rajiv Ranjan, Mohan Dubey

Employment decisions by public authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be arbitrary, ensuring protection of constitutional rights.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and Article 21 - Right to equality and right to life - The court analyzed the legality of the respondent's decision regarding employment and its impact on the appellant's rights. The case raises questions regarding procedural fairness and the authority of employment decision-making bodies.

(B) Employment Law - The principles of equal opportunity and fair treatment in employment were extensively discussed, emphasizing that all actions taken by the authority must conform to the principles of natural justice.

(C) Administrative Law - The scope of judicial review concerning employment decisions made by public authorities was examined.

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the decision made by the National Dairy Development Board concerning employment opportunities, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the decision was arbitrary and not in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Issues: The primary issues involved whether due process was followed in the employment decision and if the appellant’s constitutional rights were infringed upon.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's arbitrary decision violated the appellant's constitutional rights and that employment authorities must adhere to the principles of fairness and transparency.

Result: The writ petition was allowed, and the decision of the respondent was set aside.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

SupremeToday Portrait Ad

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

App_Store_Badge

Google_Play_Store

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :