The High Court
Case Details
2025:JHHC:35264 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5739 of 2025 ---- 1. Madan Kumar Patel, Aged about 40 years, son of Sri Narayan Prasad, Resident of Village-Chanayan Bandh, P.O. & P.S. Chanayan Bandh, District-West Champaran (Pin-845454). 2. Chandra Mauli Singh, Aged about 40 years, son of Sri Ram Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-Saraiya, P.O. Umapur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua), Bihar (Pin-821102). 3. Shyam Kumar Singh, Aged about 45 years, son of late Yogendra Prasad Singh, Resident of C/o Sriram Vastralaya, Jhanjharpur R.S., P.O. Jhanjharpur R.S., P.S. Jhanjharpur R.S, District-Madhubani (Pin- 847403). 4. Amit Kumar Malviya, Aged about 46 years, son of Sri Nand Kishor Malviya, Resident of Village Pachiyari, Kothia, P.O. Devpur, P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar (Pin-814142). 5. Sheeraz Mohammad Khan, Aged about 39 years, son of Sartaj Mohammad Khan, Resident of Village Mishripur, P.O. Rosar Kothi, P.S. R.C. Mission, District-Sahjahanpur, U.P. (Pin-242406) 6. Ranjit Kumar Singh, Aged about 39 years, son of late Mahadeo Singh, Resident of Village Bishungarh, P.O. & P.S. Bishungarh, District- Hazaribagh (Pin-825312). 7. Chandra Shekhar, Aged about 46 years, son of late Ramnath Yadav, Resident of Village Nawada, P.O. Papaur, P.S. Panchrukhi, District- Siwan (Pin-841226) (Bihar).
Legal Reasoning
8. Abhishek Pandey, Aged about 36 years, son of Sri Dinanath Pandey, Resident of Flat No. 402, Poornima Apartment, Salimpur Ahra, P.O. Kadamkuna, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna (Pin-800003) (Bihar). 9. Dileep Kumar Chaudhary, Aged about 47 years, son of late Tileshwar Choudhary, Resident of Village Gouria Karma, P.O. Gouria Karma, P.S. Barahi, District-Hazaribagh (Pin-825405). 10. Abhay Kumar, Aged about 43 years, son of Sri Ram Sewak Pal, Resident of At-Lal Bhawan Rampur, Jail Road, P.O. Gaya, P.S. Rampur, District-Gaya (Pin-823001) Bihar. 11. Ramgovind Pandit, Aged about 39 years, son of Sri Manik Chandra Pandit, Resident of Village Rangamatia, P.O. K. Bhoktadih, P.S. Masalia, District-Dumka (Pin-814166). 12. Manoj Baitha, Aged about 46 years, son of Sri Shiva Nandan Baitha, Resident of Village Getalsud, P.O. Getalsud, P.S. Angara, District- Ranchi (Pin-835103). 13. Jiten Murmu, Aged about 40 years, son of late Dulal Murmu, Resident of Village Khairbani (Gadatola), P.O. Lawabasa, P.S. Chhota Govindpur, District-East Singbhum (Pin-831004). 14. Sandeep Saurabh Samad, Aged about 39 years, son of late Mihir Samad, Resident of House No. 03, Mansarovar Enclave, Tupudana, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagganathpur, District-Ranchi (Pin-834003). 15. Amit Sanga, Aged about 38 years, son of Mr. John Sanga, Resident of Village Mehta, P.O. Kone, P.S. Karra, District-Khuti (Pin-835209). 16. Anup Minj, Aged about 40 years, son of Hari Minj, Resident of Village Ahirpurwa, P.O. Rajdanda, P.S. Mahuadanr, District-Latehar (Pin- 822119). 17. Anuranjan Xalxo, Aged about 35 years, son of Sri Nirmala Asha Ekka, Resident of Village Deepnagar, Sisai Road, Gumla, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla (Pin-835207). 1 2025:JHHC:35264 18. Arun Kumar Ekka, Aged about 48 years, son of Sri Temba Oraon, Resident of Village Hehal, Pawatoli near ITI, Itki Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District-Ranchi (Pin-834005). 19. Ashish Ranjan Kumar, Aged about 39 years, son of Sri Shushil Kumar, Resident of Saroj Bhawan, Patel Nagar, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro (Pin-827013). … Petitioners -versus- 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management having office at Project Building. P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. Inspector General (Prison), having office at Jail Inspectorate TA Division Building near Dhurwa Golchakar, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi. .… Respondents ---- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- For the Petitioner(s) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate Mr. Aayush Avant Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, AC to AG : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG ---- 03/19.11.2025 This Hon’ble Court by its order dated 14.10.2025 had given three weeks’ time to the respondents to seek instructions and inform this Court of the time required for confirming the services of the petitioners or give reasons for why the same could not be done. However, the respondents have failed to provide any assistance. Therefore, the court is proceeding with the matter in absence of any counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to confirm the service of all the petitioners with effect from the respective date of eligibility criteria in terms of State Probation Rule, 2012 notified by Notification No. 7/Kara Vividh-09/2009/3550 dated 01.08.2012.. 3. The brief facts of this case is that all the petitioners had been appointed on the post of Probation Officer in the year 2016 pursuant to the recommendation made by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and were sent for two years training as Probationers. The petitioners had passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and are working at different place 2 2025:JHHC:35264 in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioners had completed their probation period in the year 2017 to 2020 and have also cleared the departmental examination but their service have not been confirmed till date. The petitioners made representations before the Principal Secretary, Department of Home and I.G. (Prison) vide letter dated 05.01.2021, 20.09.2022 and 13.08.2025 respectively but the service of the petitioners has not yet been confirmed. In spite of the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department sending the Clearance Certificate of the petitioners to the Department of Home in the year 2023 and 2024, the Department of Home is sitting tight over the matter and has not yet confirmed the services of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have completed the entire formalities for confirmation of their services but the respondent authorities have not issued any notification confirming the services of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the post of Probation Officer has the post of Principal Probation Officer as the only promotion post and the same post is lying vacant due to non-confirmation. The learned counsel submits that the only requirement as per Jharkhand Employment Service (Amended) Rule 2015 is passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination which the petitioners have passed and are working at different places in the State of Jharkhand. 5. A model employer should act with honesty and fairness, never taking advantage of employees. A model employer must follow his/her own rules for probation and confirmation, ensuring that the process is not unnecessarily prolonged. Any extensions of probation should be clearly explained and based on valid reasons. Overall, a model employer has a duty to confirm an employee’s services promptly and fairly after the successful completion of the probation period. 6. After going through the records, I find that all the petitioners have duly fulfilled all the criteria required for confirmation of their service. The respondent authorities are at fault for not confirming the service of the petitioners when they were found eligible for the same and there are also some vacant post left. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact, I direct the respondent Principal Secretary Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management to forthwith confirm the services of the petitioners as per the probation rules. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 3 9. Since a judicial order has been passed that services of the petitioners will be confirmed, they will get all the consequential benefits and they will also be considered for further promotion, treating their services to be 2025:JHHC:35264 confirmed. 19.11.2025 Tanuj (ANANDA SEN, J.) 4