IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 104 of 2021

------

1(i) Rita Upadhyay, aged about 54 years, W/o Late Kapilmuni Upadhyay

1(ii) Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay, aged about 28 years, D/o Late Kapilmuni

Upadhyay.

1(iii) Pragati Kumari, aged about 23 years, D/o Late Kapilmuni Upadhyay

1(iv) Swati Kumari, aged about 21 years, D/o Late Kapilmuni Upadhyay

All resident of Quarter No. C/48, Ratu Road, Shivpuri, P.O. & P.S. Ratu

Road, District Ranchi, Jharkhand

2. Tiplal Sah, aged about 45 years, son of late Ghanshyam Sah, resident of

Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. Deoghar, Dist: Deoghar, presently posted as Assistant

Section Officer, Directorate of Prosecution, Hinoo, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District:

Ranchi.

….. …..

Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personal Administrative Reforms and

Rajbhasa Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,

District Ranchi.

….. …..

Respondents

CORAM

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

------

For the petitioner(s):

Mr. Abhishek Dubey, Advocate

For the respondent(s):

Mr. Devesh Krishnna, SC (M)-III

------

07/25.01.2023:

Heard, Mr. Abhishek Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

Mr. Abhishek Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

this writ petition can be disposed of considering the judgment passed by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Vijoy Kumar v. The State of

Jharkhand & Ors.” in WP(S) No. 3115 of 2015 and analogous cases. He further

submits that the petitioners have filed Interlocutory applications vide I.A. No. 5078

of 2022 and I.A. No. 9541 of 2022 for the aforesaid purpose.

3.

Both the counsels submit that this writ petition can be disposed of at

this stage itself in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this Court in the case of “Vijoy Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.”

reported in 2022 (4) JBCJ 1.

4.

It is the case of the present petitioners and the husband of petitioner

No.1 that their regular promotion was denied by the respondents only on the

ground that they have obtained their respective degrees from Hindi Vidyapith,

Deoghar.

5.

This Court in WP(S) No. 3115 of 2015 has held in paragraph No. 23

that the degrees issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar are held to be valid up to

26.02.2015. Admittedly, degrees of these petitioners were issued prior to 2015 as

such their promotion could not have been denied.

6.

Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the juniors to the

petitioners have already been promoted thus the case of the petitioners needs to

-2-

be reconsidered for promotion from the date their juniors have been promoted.

7.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that when

the case of the petitioners was considered by the Departmental Promotion

Committee, it was found that the degrees of the petitioners were issued by Hindi

Vidyapith, Deoghar and at that point of time there was a decision not to give any

benefit to the employees whose degrees were issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar.

He submits that only on 10.05.2022 this Court in WP(S) No. 3115 of 2015 has

held that the degrees issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar are held to be valid till

26.02.2015.

8.

As per the State, considering the subsequent development and

especially in view of the judgment passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 3115 of 2015

the legal heirs of petitioner No.1 should approach before the Director, Department

of Tourism, Government of Jharkhand and petitioner No.2 should approach before

the Director, Prosecution, Government of Jharkhand with their representatives, it

will be considered in the light of the judgment of this Court.

9.

Considering the said submissions of the parties, I find that the ground

for declining promotion to the petition