No Promotion Without Representation: Jharkhand HC Reinforces Procedural Discipline in Service Matters
Sudhir Kumar Verma & Ors. V. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2026
Issue
Whether the petitioners, who claimed to have completed the requisite period of service prescribed under Rule 8(iii) of the Jharkhand State Amin Cadre (Appointment, Promotion & Other Service Condition) Rules, 2013, were entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to consider and grant their promotion to the post of Amin Grade III (and thereafter Amin Grade II in case of petitioner no. 1) along with all consequential service benefits.
Rule
A writ of mandamus is issued to compel a public authority to perform a statutory or public duty when such authority has failed to act in accordance with law. In service jurisprudence, courts have consistently held that an employee must first approach the competent administrative authority and exhaust available remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Promotion claims are required to be examined in accordance with the applicable service rules, regulations, and administrative procedures, and judicial intervention is warranted only when there is arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of statutory provisions.
Application
In the present case, the petitioners asserted that they had fulfilled all eligibility conditions for promotion as laid down under Rule 8(iii) of the 2013 Rules and that their cases had not been considered by the authorities despite the lapse of the due period. On the other hand, the respondents submitted that the petitioners had not approached the competent authority with a formal representation seeking consideration of their promotional claims.
The Court examined the submissions and found that the grievance raised by the petitioners involved administrative evaluation, including verification of eligibility, service records, and compliance with the applicable rules. Since no prior representation had been made to the competent authority, the Court held that it would be inappropriate to directly issue a writ of mandamus without allowing the authorities an opportunity to discharge their statutory duty. Accordingly, the Court emphasized adherence to procedural propriety and administrative hierarchy before exercising writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The High Court disposed of the writ petition without granting a direct mandamus for promotion. It directed the petitioners to submit a detailed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, within four weeks. The competent authority was instructed to consider the representation within six weeks, place it before the appropriate committee if required, and grant the eligible benefits within a further stipulated period. In case of rejection of any part of the claim, the authority was mandated to communicate the reasons to the petitioners.
