Arvind Swami Ayer Vs the State of Jharkhand

¶1

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 5837 of 2023

¶4

Madhumita Biswas, Aged about 40 years, Wife of Shantanu Biswas, Resident of Hari Narayan Colony, Barmasiya, PO.Dhanbad, PS.- Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶5

Amit Pandey, Aged about 32 years, Son of Shyam Kumar Pandey, Resident of Godhar Basti, P.O-Kusunda, PS.- Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶6

Manoj Kumar Singh, Aged about 30 years, Son of Deoraj Singh, Resident of 157, Godhar More, PO.- Kusunda, PS. Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶7

Nimai Kumar Mandal, Aged about 34 years, Son of Late Bhutnath Mandal, Resident of Khas Pargha, PO.- Pargha, PS.- Baliapur, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶8

Rohit Ranjan, Aged about 28 years, Son of Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Resident of Surya Vihar Colony, Bartand, PO. + PS.Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶9

Chintu Kumar, Aged about 33 years, son of Kallu Rawani, Resident of Godhar Basti, PO.- Kusunda, PS.-Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶10

Naresh Kumar, Aged about 36 years, Son of Late Mathura Chauhan, Resident of C.D. Singh Colony, Bartand, PO. + PS.Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶11

Md. Sarfraz Ansari, Aged about 30 years, Son of Md. Idrish Ansari, Resident of Azad Nagar, Bhuli, PO.-Bhuli, PS.-Bank More, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶12

Rahul Kumar Laik, Aged about 28 years, Son of Tarun Kumar Laik, Resident of raj Bari Road, Katras, PO-Katras Bazar, PS.Katrasgarh, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶13

Ranjeet Rajwar, aged about 34 years, Son of Jeetu Rajwar, Resident of Golmara, PS. Baliapur, P.O.-Pargha, District Dhanbad.

¶14

Md. Sanjar Alam, Aged about 36 years, Son of Md. Noor Alam, Resident of R.M.L-60 Rangamati, Sindri, PO.- Sindri, PS.Baliyapur Dist. Dhanbad.

¶15

Sunil Kumar Raut, Aged about 30 years, Son of Shiv Prasad Raut, Resident of Rani Road, Bhuda, PO.-Dhanbad, PS.- Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶16

Page 1 of 10

¶17

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶18

Lal Kamal Mahato, Aged about 41 years, Son of Manu Ram Mahato, Resident of Village Kapuria, PO.-Bhelatand, PS.- Katras, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶19

Bimlesh Kumar, Aged about 32 years, Son of Ram Janki Vishwakarma, Resident of Quarter Number.-101, D Block Bhuli, PO.- Sharamik Nagar, PS.- Bhuli, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶20

Om Prakash Chouhan, Aged about 30 Years, Son of Ram Suresh Nonia, Resident of Godhar No. 25, PO.-Kusunda, PS.- Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶21

Surendra Rawani, Aged about 39 years, Son of Jyoti Rawani, Resident of Godhar Basti, PO.- Kusunda, PS.-Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶22

Mukesh Kumar Verma, Aged about 30 Years, Son of Sukhdev Prasad Verma, Resident of Sri. Nagar Colony, Manaitand, PO.Dhanbad, PS. Dhansar, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶23

Satyendra Kumar Marandi, Aged about 30 years, Son of Jagarnath Marandi, Resident of W55 Rangamati Basti, PO.- Sindri, PS.Baliyapur, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶24

Manoj Kumar Kisku, Aged about 34 years, Son of Bharat Chandra Manjhi, Resident of Village Birsinghpur, PO. Ghabar, PS. Baliapur, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶25

Sanjay Kumar Chouhan, Aged about 28 years, Son of Balkeshwar Nonia, Resident of Godhar 4 No, PO. Kusunda, PS.- Kenduadih, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶26

Pintu Kumar Mandal, Aged about 36 years, Son of Sashi Mandal, Resident of Village Dudhia, PO. Moko, PS. Baliapur, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶27

Brajesh Kumar, Aged about 32 years, Son of Rajendra Sharma, Resident of Putki Bazar, PO.- Kusunda, PS.-Putki, Dist. Dhanbad.

¶28

Sanjay Kumar, Aged about 47 years, Son of Mahesh Ram, Resident of Coal Board Colony, Kandra, PO.-Moti Nagar, PS.Sindri, Dist. Dhanbad

¶29

... Petitioners

¶30

Versus

¶31

The State of Jharkhand

¶32

The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, having its office at 4th floor Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶33

Page 2 of 10

¶34

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶35

The Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. Dhanbad & District Dhanbad.

¶36

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman having its office at Namkum, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi.

¶37

The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Namkum, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi.

¶38

... Respondents

¶39

WITH

¶40

W.P. (S) No. 539 of 2024

¶41

Arvind Swami Ayer, Aged about 37 years, Son of Balram Swami Ayer, Resident of Village 93, Swami Villa, Mahavir Nagar, Near Idea Tower, Bhuda, P.O., P.S. & District - Dhanbad.

¶42

Manish Singh, Aged about 32 years, Son of Raj Kumar Singh, Resident of Near Kali Mandir, Bekarbandh, P.O., P.S.& DistrictDhanbad.

¶43

Rajeev Ranjan Kumar Singh, Aged about 33 years, Son of Late Arbind Singh, Resident of Village Ghanudih, Durgapur, P.O., P.S. Jharia & District Dhanbad.

¶44

Anurag Singh, Aged about 34 years, Son of Satendra Singh, Resident of Dumri Kala, Hiring, P.O., P.S. & District Chatra.

¶45

Sagar Kumar Gupta, Aged about 25 years, Son of Ganga Gupta, Resident of Near Chhat Talab, Manaitand, Rajpati Saw Colony, P.O., P.S. & District Dhanbad.

¶46

Sanjeet Kumar, Aged about 30 years, Son of Subedar Paswan, Resident of Village Chhatabad, Kathal Dhaura, P.O., P.S. Katras & District - Dhanbad.

¶47

... Petitioners

¶48

Versus

¶49

The State of Jharkhand

¶50

The Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development, having its office at 4th floor Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶51

The Dhanbad Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, having its office at Dhanbad, P.O., P.S. Dhanbad & District Dhanbad.

¶52

Page 3 of 10

¶53

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶54

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman having its office at Namkum, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi.

¶55

The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission having its office at Namkum, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi.

¶56

... Respondents

¶57

CORAM: HO HON’BL	--------- N’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE E MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ---------
For the Petitioners:	Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate Mr. Harshit Sahay, Advocate Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate Mr. Bhanu Kumar No.1, Advocate
For the State:	Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G. Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA
For the JSSC:	Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate ---------

¶58

05/Dated: 18.02.2026

¶59

1. Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh who appears with Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the Dhanbad Municipal Corporation and, Mr. Yogesh Modi, A.C. to learned A.A.G.-1A, for the State.

¶60

2. Learned counsels for the parties agree that both these petitions can be disposed of by a common order, since they relate to the challenge to the Rules for direct recruitment to the post of Sanitary Supervisor in the Municipal Councils/Corporations in the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, both these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶61

Page 4 of 10

¶62

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶63

3. The learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, pointed out that the Rules which are the subject matter of challenge in these petitions, i.e., the Jharkhand Municipal Service Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2021, were also the subject matter of challenge in W.P. (S) No.4535 of 2024. They pointed out that by detailed judgment and order dated 20.08.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has already upheld the constitutional validity and dismissed the said writ petition.

¶64

4. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that certain grounds which he now proposes to raise were not considered in the judgment and order disposing of W.P. (S) No.4535 of 2024. Mr. Singh submits that the Rules in question are not relatable to Section 590 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. Assuming that they are, even the Coordinate Bench’s judgment holds that there was no compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 590 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. He further submits that there is no clarity under the 2011 Act regarding the delegation of powers to the Government to frame Rules determining the service conditions, inter alia, for the post of Sanitary Supervisor in the Municipal Councils or Corporations in the State of Jharkhand. He submitted that in the absence of any clear and categorical position in the 2011 Act, the State was not empowered to frame the impugned Rules by purporting to exercise its executive powers or the powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. He referred to Article 243Q of the Constitution to submit that local authorities, such as Municipal Councils or Corporations, have now been conferred

¶65

Page 5 of 10

¶66

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶67

constitutional status, coupled with substantial autonomy to determine their own affairs, including the service conditions of their employees. Accordingly, Mr. Singh submitted that the impugned Rules lack legislative competence or otherwise ultra vires the powers of the State Government.

¶68

5. Mr Singh, without prejudice to the above, submitted that the impugned Rules have introduced the requirement of a Post Graduate Diploma in Health and Sanitation or other prescribed subjects/ faculties. He submitted that there are no Institutions/Universities in Jharkhand which offer a post-graduate diploma in the prescribed courses. This, he submitted, renders the impugned Rules manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that, as a welfare State, the State of Jharkhand was duty-bound to ensure that qualifications attainable only by studying or undergoing courses in the Institutions/Universities of Jharkhand alone could be introduced as eligibility criteria/qualifications.

¶69

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that most of the challenges to the impugned Rules were rejected by the Coordinate Bench when dismissing W.P. (S) No. 4535 of 2024. They submitted that the contention that an argument was not considered is never sufficient to assail the decision before another Coordinate Bench. He submitted that the qualifications have a nexus with the post of Sanitary Supervisor. The selection process has been completed, and several candidates who meet the eligibility criteria have already been selected and appointed. They submitted that sufficient legislative

¶70

Page 6 of 10

¶71

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶72

competence vested in the State Government to frame the impugned Rules, and this question was also answered against the petitioners while dismissing W.P. (S) No. 4535 of 2024.

¶73

7. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the judgment and order dated 20.08.2024 dismissing W.P. (S) No. 4535 of 2024 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the challenge was ultimately withdrawn. Accordingly, they submitted that the issue, which has already been settled by the Coordinate Bench, may not be revisited by this Bench, whether on the arguments advanced or otherwise.

¶74

8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

¶75

9. At the outset, we are satisfied that the Coordinate Bench was precisely considering the validity of the Rules for appointment to the post of Sanitary Supervisor in Municipal Councils and Corporations, which is the subject matter of these two petitions. Further, the Coordinate Bench has upheld the constitutional validity of these Rules after considering most of the arguments urged in these petitions, including those now urged by Mr Rupesh Singh across the Bar. This includes the contention that the State lacks legislative competence to enact such Rules or that the PG qualification could not have been prescribed.

¶76

10. The challenge to the decision of the Coordinate Bench appears to have been abandoned by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 4535 of 2024, as the SLP was withdrawn. Therefore, unless the petitioners in the present petitions make out a case demonstrating that the view

¶77

Page 7 of 10

¶78

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶79

taken by the Coordinate Bench is palpably incorrect, or that there are any other strong grounds based upon which we ought to disagree with the said view, we do not think that it would be appropriate for us to take a different view based upon the arguments now advanced before us.

¶80

11. Once the constitutional validity of a provision is upheld, then, ordinarily, it is not open to parties to invite the Court to revisit the issue only on the ground that some arguments were not raised or considered even though such arguments do not go to the root of the matter or make out a case of per incuriam or sub silentio . Otherwise, the constitutional validity would be repeatedly challenged, and perpetual uncertainty would be the norm.

¶81

12. In this case, W.P. (S) No. 4535 of 2024, the argument regarding the State Government’s legislative competence was tested and found against the petitioners. The argument about educational qualifications was also considered and rejected. The Coordinate Bench held that the State Government had sufficient powers to frame the Rules for determining the service conditions of Sanitary Supervisors. Further, determining eligibility conditions was in the exclusive domain of the State, and constitutional courts do not normally interfere with the formulation of eligibility requirements unless a case of manifest arbitrariness and absurdity is made out, or the qualifications have no nexus whatsoever with the requirements of the posts.

¶82

13. The argument based on Article 243Q of the Constitution was, for some unexplainable reasons, not raised in W.P. (S) No. 4535 of

¶83

Page 8 of 10

¶84

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶85

However, even based upon the said argument, the petitioners cannot contend that the autonomy of the Municipal Councils or Corporations is unduly diminished. The provision in the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, which empowers the State Government to frame Rules for recruitment or provide for the conditions of service of Municipal employees, is not challenged in these petitions. Therefore, only the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred by these statutory provisions cannot be challenged or pronounced as “unconstitutional” based upon such a contention.

¶86

14. The argument that the Institutions/Universities in Jharkhand do not provide postgraduate courses, which are now considered essential requirements for consideration for the post of Sanitary Supervisor, can also not be accepted. Apart from the Coordinate Bench's rejection of this contention, the submissions on behalf of the Staff Selection Commission make it apparent that candidates meeting these qualifications have been selected and appointed. In any event, the Rules do not require that such qualifications be obtained only through the Institutes and Universities in Jharkhand. Accordingly, we see no ground to disagree with the Coordinate Bench’s judgment and order dated 20.08.2024 disposing of the challenge to these very Rules in W.P. (S) No. 4535 of 2024 and entertaining these petitions.

¶87

15. Mr Singh, however, submitted that most of the above petitioners have been working as Sanitary Supervisors on a contractual basis since 2016 and 2018. He submitted that in W.P. (S) No. 5837 of 2023, even a limited interim order was granted on 18.10.2023, directing the

¶88

Page 9 of 10

¶89

Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:4684-DB

¶90

respondents not to discharge the petitioners during the pendency of the petition.

¶91

16. Although we are not entertaining the challenge to the impugned Rules, we direct that until a regular selection process is completed, the petitioners should not be discharged from their contractual engagements in the posts they presently occupy, over and above the posts for which regular appointments have already been made pursuant to the impugned advertisement.

¶92

17. This means that the petitioners would have to make way for the regular appointees selected under the impugned advertisement process, but if some posts are yet to be filled in by the regular process, and the petitioners, or any of them, are continuing under a contractual arrangement, they should not be disturbed until such regular process is completed. Normally, one ad hoc or pro tem appointment should not be substituted for another.

¶93

18. Both the petitions are disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. Pending interim application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶94

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶95

February 18, 2026 N.A.F.R.

¶96

Manoj/ Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 19.02.2026

¶97

Page 10 of 10

Arvind Swami Ayer v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Swami Ayer v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annapurna Coke Industries through Its Proprietor Mr Jitendra Kumar Vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited through Its Managing Director

M/S Techno Fuel (India) Private Limited, through Its Director Rahul Raj, Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Coal

M/S. Kashish Developers Ltd. Thr Its Authorized Signatory Cum Chief Financial Officer Niraj Kumar Vs the Union of India, through Commissioner of Income Tax (T.D.S.), Ranchi

M/S Ma Laxmi Construction, through Its One of the Partners Namely Laxmi Kant Dubey Vs State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary

The State of Jharkhand Vs Yamuna Vishwakarma

Madhumita Biswas Vs the State of Jharkhand