Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Sanjeew Kumar Son of Bholanath Bhagat - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 3328 of 2025
Decided On : 27-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Res.-State : Mr. Varun Prabhakar and Arun Kumar, AC to G.P.-III

The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right. Administrative failure to calculate vacancies or conduct timely selection proceedings cannot validly trigger the sealed cover procedure to retrospectively deny promotions when candidates were fully eligible before the commencement of formal disciplinary or criminal proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Right to be considered for promotion - Fundamental right of an employee - Mandatory requirement to convene selection committee meetings annually - Miscalculation of vacancies by administrative authorities resulting in delay or non-consideration of eligible candidates constitutes a violation of fundamental rights - Sealed cover procedure cannot be invoked based on criminal proceedings initiated after the date an employee was eligible and due for promotion to a vacant position - Inaction of public authorities in timely convening committees or preparing panels constitutes an arbitrary act and administrative lapse. (Paras 10, 11, 13, 17, 20)

(B) Service Law - Promotion - Anticipated or projected vacancies - Duty of administrative department to prepare panels in advance - Failure to perform administrative duties leading to stagnation or bypass of eligible candidates necessitates judicial intervention - Consequential benefits - Entitlement arises when denial of promotion occurs due to administrative error or laches. (Paras 12, 14, 24)

Facts of the case:
Employees holding lower administrative ranks sought promotion to higher grade posts based on anticipated vacancies. The authorities failed to accurately calculate vacancies and act upon available positions, resulting in the non-convening of selection committees for eligible candidates. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against the employees. The authorities then applied the sealed cover procedure to deny their promotion claims, despite the eligibility having been established prior to the commencement of such legal proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The administrative authority’s failure to identify vacancies accurately and hold timely meetings deprived the employees of their fundamental right to be considered for promotion. Criminal proceedings initiated after the due date for promotion could not retrospectively justify the application of the sealed cover procedure to periods where the candidates were eligible and no chargesheet existed.

Issues: Whether the failure to accurately assess vacancy positions and the subsequent delay in convening the promotion committee resulted in an unlawful denial of the fundamental right to be considered for promotion; whether sealed cover procedures are applicable to override rights vested prior to the initiation of formal criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right integral to the right to equality. Administrative inaction or erroneous calculation of vacancies that denies such consideration constitutes a violation of constitutional protections. Sealed cover procedures are triggered only by the existence of formal charges at the time of consideration and cannot be applied retroactively to defeat rights that had already accrued.

Result: Petition allowed with directions to re-evaluate vacant positions and consider eligible candidates for promotion, including the grant of notional and consequential benefits.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving promotion delays and investigation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. conflicting claims over vacancy calculations and eligibility timing. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. sealed cover procedure inapplicable prior to charge-sheet issuance. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. judicial mandate to rectify vacancy miscalculation and promote. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. directives for recalculation and timely promotion considerations. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners who are presently working at the post of Additional Collector and equivalent rank seek consideration of their case for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary and equivalent posts w.e.f. 22.12.2023 i.e. the date on which the Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”) was convened after the petitioners became eligible for the promotion.

Further, the petitioners have also prayed for grant of all notional and consequential benefits to the petitioners w.e.f. 22.12.2023 upon being promoted to the post of Joint Secretary and equivalent posts.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Deputy Collector pursuant to them being declared successful in the first Combined Jharkhand Civil Services Examination, 2006.

The selection/recruitment process, came under the scanner of investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation and upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 30.04.2024 in which the petitioners have been arraigned as accused only for the reason that they are the beneficiaries of the process which is said to be tainted.

During the pendency of the investigation, the petitioners were granted promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Officer and equivalent posts by a notification dated 06.07.2015. Subsequently, vide notification dated 28.09.2021, the petitioners were granted promotion to the post of Additional Collector w.e.f. the date of notification but being aggrieved by the effective date of promotion, a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(S) no. 5119 of 2022 was filed by the petitioners.

This Court vide order dated 20.09.2023 passed in W.P.(S) no. 5119 of 2022, granted notional promotion to the petitioners to the post of Additional Collector w.e.f. 25.09.2020 but no consequential financial benefits was accorded. The petitioners have been discharging their duties and functions with utmost integrity, honesty, hard work and have claimed that they are now eligible and entitled to be promoted to the next higher post of Joint Secretary on their completion of two and a half years on the post of Additional Collector. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is the specific case of the petitioners that they were entitled to be considered for promotion by the DPC, which convened a meeting in December 2023, for the purposes of preparing a panel of eligible candidates who could be placed and promoted in the year 2024 as and when the vacancies arise on account of retirement or otherwise.

The case of the petitioners is based on the resolution of the State of Jharkhand dated 07.11.2003, and the resolution dated 12.05.2014. By the resolution dated 07.11.2003, the Government of Jharkhand had resolved vide paragraph 5 as follows: -

“It shall be the responsibility of the administrative department to get a panel prepared by the departmental promotion committee by December of the previous year for promotion in the next year against the vacancies arising in each calendar year, so that promotion orders may be issued in time against the vacancies arising in the next year.”

Likewise, by the resolution dated 12.05.2014, the Government of Jharkhand had decided to convene at least two meetings of the DPC per year.

4. Ld. Counsel contended that the failure of the State of Jharkhand and c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIDEEPAK ROSHAN, J.Sanjeew Kumar Son of Bholanath Bhagat - AppellantVs.The State of Jharkhand - RespondentW.P.(S) No. 3328 of 2025Decided On : 27-04-2026

Cases Referred (8)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.
Sanjeew Kumar Son of Bholanath Bhagat - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 3328 of 2025
Decided On : 27-04-2026