Madhusudan Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

2026:JHHC:730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.943 of 2023

------

Madhusudan Kumar, son of Ramchandra Prasad, resident of Bhagaiya, Thakur Gangti, P.O. & P.S. Thakur Gangti, District Godda.

¶5

… … Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Employment & Training Department, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.

¶9

The General Manager, District Industry Center, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda.

¶10

The In-Charge, Saheed Nirmal Mahto, Jharkhand Resham Training Institute, Bhagaiya, P.O. & P.S. Thakur Gangti, District Godda.

¶11

The Managing Director, Jharkhand Silk Textile and Handicraft Development Corporation Limited, office at Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi.

¶12

… … Respondents

¶13

------

¶14

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶15

For the Petitioner(s) : None present. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate

¶16

------

¶17

14/ 12.01.2026

¶18

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner even on second call. Heard learned counsel representing respondents and gone through the writ petition.

¶19

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to initiate a process of employment and thereafter by completing the said process, appoint the petitioner. 3. From the writ petition, I find that the petitioner had undergone a training programme under the Central Silk Technology Research Institute, Government of India. After completion of the training, the petitioner worked as a Master Trainer in the “Saheed Nirmal Mahto Jharkhand Resham Training Institute, Bhagaiya,

¶20

1

¶21

2026:JHHC:730

¶22

Godda”, under the Government of Jharkhand, for the period 11.04.2007 to 02.10.2009. He was sent for training including training at Ahmedabad.

¶23

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents should initiate a process to appoint the petitioner on regular basis, for which this writ petition has been filed.

¶24

5. Whether to initiate an appointment process or to fill up the vacancy, if any, is the prerogative of the employer. No Court can issue mandamus directing the respondents to initiate a process of appointment.

¶25

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha reported in (2025) 7 SCC 705 , at para-39, has held as follows:-

¶26

“ 39. It cannot be gainsaid that the factors of “when”, “which”, “what”, “who” and “how” that are associated with a recruitment/selection process is the prerogative of the recruiting authority and the selectors; however, at the same time, the process has to be conducted consistent with statutory provisions governing the same, if any, as well as principles of absolute fairness and complete nonarbitrariness. Though it is true that the law does not postulate a fetter on the authority of the employer State and it is within the domain of the Government when to initiate a process of recruitment for public employment, either according to recruitment rules or even in the absence thereof, it is for the Government of the day to decide in which manner it proposes to conduct selection, what would be the various stages the candidates aspiring for appointment

¶27

2

¶28

2026:JHHC:730

¶29

have to pass through in order to be placed in the select list, who would be the selectors, and how weightage is to be given to each of the testing methods, a great deal of credence is lent to a process if it is fairly and transparently conducted in accordance with rules, whatever be its source, without the slightest hint of any bias or favouritism or nepotism. Normally, it is not for the courts to interfere unless the process smacks of mala fides. …”

¶30

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Arabinda Rabha ( supra ), since no mandamus can be issued in this case, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶31

8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed .

¶32

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶33

12^th January, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2

¶34

Uploaded on 14.01.2026

¶35

3

Madhusudan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudan Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhu Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Putul Hansda Vs Mr. Chiranjeet Mukharjee, the Project Officer, M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

Babita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhola Prasad Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ajit Munda Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department

Maxima Bilung Vs the State of Jharkhand