Public Advertisement Can't Replace Direct Communication To Employees For Promotion : Jharkhand HC
Namdev Singh
5 April 2026 10:50 AM IST
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that public advertisements cannot substitute direct communication with employees for departmental requirements, and denying promotion to eligible employees without proper notice is arbitrary. It was further held that affected employees are entitled to retrospective promotion from the date when juniors have been promoted.
Background Facts
The employees were Junior Engineers working in the Road Construction Department of the Government of Jharkhand. They approached the Single Judge seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). They were fully eligible and possessed the necessary qualifications, but their juniors were promoted over them.
The Department issued a public advertisement through which it had called upon all eligible officers to submit certain documents including vigilance clearance and list of assets. The employees claimed that this advertisement was never brought to their individual notice. Further that direct communication was never made with them to submit any documents. Their juniors managed to get their cases considered and were promoted over employees.
Aggrieved by this denial of promotion, the employees filed writ petition. The Single Judge directed that their cases should be considered for promotion from the date their juniors were promoted, along with all consequential benefits.
Aggrieved by the same, the State of Jharkhand filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Jharkhand High Court.
It was argued by the appellants-State that the department had called upon all officers to produce documents through a public advertisement. It was for consideration of employees' cases for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer (Civil). It was further submitted that despite such notice having been published, the employees failed to produce the required documents. Therefore their cases were not considered for promotion.
On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents-employees that there was no communication to them to submit any documents. It was submitted that a letter was addressed to the departmental head, but it was never communicated to the employees. It was submitted that most of the documents were already furnished, and documents like vigilance clearance, etc., had to be furnished by the concerned department of the appellants themselves.
Findings of the Court
It was observed by the Division Bench that an internal letter dated 29th August, 2022 had been issued by the Joint Secretary to the departmental head. It required him to call upon the employees to furnish details regarding their service history, character report and list of assets.
However, the letter or the request was never communicated to the employees. Consequently, the department had admitted that no direct communication ever took place with the employees. It was observed by the Bench that the employees were denied their right to be considered for promotion due to technical considerations for which the employees were not to be blamed.
It was further observed by the Division Bench that the employees were not directly granted promotion but their cases were placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The DPC found that the employees were entitled to be promoted from the date their juniors were promoted.
It was held by the Division Bench that as per the principles under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, substituted service through paper publication cannot be resorted to in the very first instance. Further this practise cannot be resorted by the department against its own employees working within the department.
It was further held that the principle of fairness required that the employees should be given an adequate opportunity to produce documents, assuming such documents were necessary for consideration of promotion. Consequently, the employees were found to be eligible and also fulfilled all standards necessary for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).
With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Division Bench.
Case Name : State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Bikaram Mandal & Ors.
Case No. : L.P.A. No.314 of 2025
Counsel for the Appellants : Anish Kumar Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I
Counsel for the Respondents : Rupesh Singh, Amarendra Pradhan, Advocate, A. Allam, Sr. Advocate, Faisal Allam, Advocate