2026:JHHC:10827

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

-----

W.P.(S) No. 204 of 2017

-----

Prakash Ranjan son of Dr. Nirpendra Nath Thakur, resident of D-

17, MIG Harmu Housing Colony, PO: Harmu, PS: Argora, District

Ranchi. …… Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of

Industries having its office at Nepal House, PO and PS:

Doranda, District: Ranchi.

2. Managing Director, Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Corporation Limited(Jharcraft) –cum- Director,

Handloom, Sericulture and Handcraft having its office at DIC

Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:

Ranchi.

3. Senior Manager, H.R., Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Department Limited (Jharcraft) having its office at

DIC Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar,

District: Ranchi.

4. H.R. Head Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft Development

Department Limited (Jharcraft) having its office at DIC Building,

Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District: Ranchi.

……Respondents

With

W.P.(S) No. 6022 of 2016

Anjani Sahay, son of late Dr. Krishna Kumar Sahay, resident of

Flat No. 503 Anand Bhawan Apartment, Bariatu, PO + PS:

Bariatu, District Ranchi. …… Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of

Industries having its office at Nepal House, PO and PS:

Doranda, District: Ranchi.

2. Managing Director, Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Corporation Limited(Jharcraft) –cum- Director,

Handloom, Sericulture and Handcraft having its office at DIC

Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:

Ranchi.

3. Senior Manager, H.R., Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Department Limited (Jharcraft) having its office at

DIC Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:

Ranchi.

……Respondents

2026:JHHC:10827

2

With

W.P.(S) No. 196 of 2017

Sriniwas Shahdeo @ Sriniwas, son of late Lal Arun Nath Shahdeo,

resident of Shyam Sundar Lane, Sukhdeonagar, Ratu Road, PO +

PS Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi. …… Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of

Industries having its office at Nepal House, PO and PS:

Doranda, District: Ranchi.

2. Managing Director, Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Corporation Limited(Jharcraft) –cum- Director,

Handloom, Sericulture and Handcraft having its office at DIC

Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:

Ranchi.

3. Senior Manager, H.R., Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Department Limited (Jharcraft) having its office at

DIC Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar,

District: Ranchi.

4. H.R. Head Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft Development

Department Limited (Jharcraft) having its office at DIC Building,

Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District: Ranchi.

……Respondents

With

W.P.(S No. 205 of 2017

Sandeep Kumar Pathak, son of Shri Saligram Pathak, resident of

village+PO+PS- Sahatwar, District Balia, State-Uttar Pradesh.

..… Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of

Industries having its office at Nepal House, PO and PS:

Doranda, District: Ranchi.

2. Managing Director, Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Corporation Limited(Jharcraft) –cum- Director,

Handloom, Sericulture and Handcraft having its office at DIC

Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:

Ranchi.

3. Senior Manager, H.R., Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Department Limited (Jharcraft) having its office at

DIC Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar,

District: Ranchi.

4. H.R. Head Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft Development

Corporation Limited (Jharcraft) having its office at DIC

Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:

Ranchi. ……Respondents

2026:JHHC:10827

3

With

W.P.(S) No. 206 of 2017

Neekesh Kumar, son of Shri Manoj Prasad Singh, resident of Shri

Ram Nagar, Road No.1, Bazra, Hehal, PO: Bazra, PS

Sukhdeonagar, District: Ranchi. …… Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of

Industries having its office at Nepal House, PO and PS: Doranda,

District: Ranchi.

2. Managing Director, Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Corporation Limited(Jharcraft) –cum- Director,

Handloom, Sericulture and Handcraft having its office at DIC

Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:

Ranchi.

3. Senior Manager, H.R., Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft

Development Department Limited (Jharcraft) having its office at

DIC Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:

Ranchi.

4. H.R. Head Jharkhand Silk, Textile and Handicraft Development

Corporation Limited (Jharcraft) having its office at DIC

Building, Ratu Road, PO: GPO, PS: Sukhdeonagar, District:

Ranchi.

……Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate

For the State :Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, AC to GA-V;

Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA-I;

Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA-I;

Mr. Devesh Krishna, SC Mines-III;

Mr. Kumar Pawan, AC to SC Mines-III

For the Resp. No.8 :Mr. Ranjan Prasad Sinha, Advocate

For the Jharcraft :Mr. C.A. Bardhan, Advocate

------

Order No.14/ Dated:15/04/2026

1. All the above noted writ petitions having common issues have

been directed to be listed together for analogous hearing and are being

disposed of by a common order for sake of brevity this Court is taking

the fact of W.P.(S) 204 of 2017 as a leading case.

2026:JHHC:10827

4

Prayer:

2. The above writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India have been filed seeking following relief(s):

“(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order / orders,

direction /directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the

letter no. 1886 dated 09.12.2016 issued under the seal and

signature of Head H.R. whereby and whereunder services of the

petitioner was returned to show called Contractors i.e. Inov

Source Private Limited contrary to the fact that the petitioner was

appointed by the Jharkhand Silk Textile and Handicraft

Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as

Jharcraft) directly and not by the Contractor Company and

therefore the aforesaid return of the services to the private

contractor who were neither the appointing authority nor

appointments were done by them rather after appointment to

show that he is the employee of M/s Inov Source Private Limited

they have returned the service whereas the petitioner is working

on sanctioned post as an advertisement was also issued by the

Jharcraft and the same was also published by the Industry

Department thus the order of return of service by way of

termination that too without issuing any show cause notice or

without any departmental proceeding itself is wrong and liable to

be set aside.

(ii) Petitioner further prays for the issuance of an appropriate

writ/writs, order /orders, direction / directions upon the

respondent to immediately and forthwith after setting aside the

order aforesaid he may be reinstated in service as the petitioner

is the employee of Jharcraft and in the appointment process nor

in the advertisement the name of the company was ever been

mentioned therefore the termination or return of service to a

private company itself is illegal and arbitrary.

(iii) Petitioner further prays or the issuance of an appropriate

writ/writs, order/ orders, direction/directions upon the respondent

that the payment with respect to the petitioner be also paid from

the date of his appointment with effect from 01.11.2016 as he has

worked and has been allowed to join but no payment has been

made after the appointment till he worked in the Jharcraft”.

Factual Matrix:

3. The facts of the case as per pleadings made in W.P.(S) No. 204

of 2017 are required to be enumerated which are as under:

(i) It is stated that the advertisement was published

under the seal and signature of respondent no. 3 on

19.10.2016 and an application was invited for the

different posts including the post of Assistant General

2026:JHHC:10827

5

Manager, Central Government Scheme and State

Government Scheme and other different posts.

(ii) It is stated that with regard to the above recruitment

the advertisement was also published in the website of

the Jharkhand Government, Department of Industries

and an application was also invited to the above stated

posts and all the requisite qualification and other

condition was mentioned in the said website.

(iii) It is stated that in pursuant to the advertisement

petitioner submitted his application for the post of

Assistant General Manager, Central Government

Scheme and also for the Assistant General Manager,

State Government Scheme. Thereafter the petitioner

was called for an interview by the respondent Jharcraft

and he was finally declared successful but during the

course of interview it was specified to the petitioner that

both the posts have been merged as an Assistant

General Manager, Government Scheme and thereafter

the petitioner was declared successful and was

appointed.

(iv) It is further stated that the respondent no. 4 issued a

letter bearing reference no. 1415 dated 31.10.2016 and

it was informed that the petitioner along with other

employees who were selected by the Jharcraft was

enrolled in the organization of an outsource unit

2026:JHHC:10827

6

namely, M/s Inov Source Private Limited on the take

home salary per month with effect from 01.11.2016.

(v) It is further stated that the petitioner gave his joining

to the Managing Director, Jharcraft on 01.11.2016

which was finally accepted by the respondent

authorities. The petitioner was allowed to work and he

was performing his duties to the utmost satisfaction to

the respondent authorities and many work was allotted

to him and he has performed all the works which was

given by the authorities and there was no complaint

against this petitioner.

(vi) It is stated that all of a sudden on 21 November,

2016 the work assignment letter was sent to this

petitioner from Inov Source Private Limited as the

petitioner was appointed by the Jharcraft which was

verbally agreed by the officials that there would be no

disturbance if he signs such an agreement with the said

Inov Source Private Limited and on the assurance the

petitioner signed the said work assignment letter and

thereafter on the very same day a letter of engagement

was also issued to the petitioner which was accepted by

him.

(vii) It is stated that the petitioner was performing his

duties and after completion of one month of his service

no payment was made to him even though he continued

2026:JHHC:10827

7

in the service and performed his duties with utmost

satisfaction of the respondent authorities and as directed

by them.

(viii) It is stated that all of a sudden on 9

th

December,

2016 at about 6.31 P.M. a mail was sent under the

signature of respondent no. 4 and it was informed to this

petitioner that his services is no more required in the

said organization and a letter was also annexed with the

said mail to the petitioner. The letter being numbered as

Reference No. 1886 dated 09.12.2016 was written to

M/s Inov Source Private Limited by respondent no. 4

whereby and whereunder it was informed to the said

Inov Source Private Limited that the services of all the

new appointees are no more required in the said

organization so a notice of 14 days or salary in lieu of

14 days be given and service be terminated.

(ix) It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner was

allowed to work for the next 14 days and finally on

23.12.2016 the petitioner was removed from his service.

It is also pertinent to mention here that all the other

appointees along with this petitioner were also removed

from service with effect from 09.12.2016 itself.

(x) Thus, it is stated that from the above stated fact it is

apparent that the petitioner was appointed on the

sanctioned post and after following the due process he

2026:JHHC:10827

8

was duly appointed on the said post with effect from

01.11.2016.

4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioners in

terms of advertisement has offered their candidature for their

engagement on the posts of Assistant General Manager, Central

Government Scheme, Law Officer, Civil Engineer, Assistant General

Manager and Data Entry Operator respectively. As per instruction

referred in the advertisement the details of copy of the application as

available in the website of the respondent Jharkcraft has been obtained.

The due application has been made by the petitioners and they have

been called upon to participate in the interview as per the instruction

referred in the application form, as it is stated therein that the

candidates will be called upon to participate in the interview which is

to be held on 26

th

and 27

th

October, 2016. The petitioners have been

declared to be qualified and they have been appointed. The petitioners

have also joined the services. But the grievance of the writ petitioners

is that even though there was no condition for their engagement to be

made on outsourcing basis but they have been appointed on

outsourcing basis by one M/s Inov Source Private Limited as would be

evident from the communication as contained in reference No. 1415

dated 31.10.2016 as available in Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners:

5. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that immediately after

joining, due objections were made as to why they have been engaged

by one outsource agency even though the advertisement to that effect

2026:JHHC:10827

9

was not issued by the said agency and even there was no reference in

the advertisement issued by the respondent-Jharcraft. The said protest

has not been taken care of, therefore, the writ petitions have been filed.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents:

6. The respondents have appeared and filed counter-affidavit appending

therein the decision taken in the memorandum of understanding which

shows that the appointment which is the subject matter of the present

writ petitions was initially from 01.11.2016 to 30.11.2016 as per terms

mentioned in the letter of engagement dated 21.11.2016. It has been

submitted that however it was also referred therein that if the project

work is extended the association with the employees will be extended

for such further period as may be decided by the respondent. The said

communication has been issued by the M/s Inov Source Private

Limited, the outsource agency. It has been submitted by referring to the

communication dated 21.11.2016 that there is specific reference that

the appointment is on contract basis as would be evident from

paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the communication dated 21.11.2016. The

argument, therefore, has been made that since the appointment has

been made on contract basis based upon the continuation of the project

and the moment the project has ended the services of the writ

petitioners have been dispensed with.

4. The learned counsel for the concerned respondent has therefore

submitted that the writ petitions have no merit and hence, the same are

fit to be dismissed.

Analysis:

2026:JHHC:10827

10

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the pleading filed on behalf of the respective parties in the writ

petitions.

8. The basic question which has been raised as to whether the

advertisement having no mention therein that the work would be the

nature of appointment, can it be changed subsequently making it the

appointment to be made through outsource basis?

9. This Court in order to consider the aforesaid issue needs to refer

herein the underlined principle of appointment both under regular

appointment and by way of contract. The principle of following

mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for

appointment in the regular establishment are equally applicable to the

appointment to be made on contract basis so that there may be fairness

and transparency in the public employment. There is no dispute that the

respondent-Jharcraft is a public body having autonomy under the

ultimate control of the State of Jharkhand, however, autonomy with

respect to making appointment is available to the

respondent-Jharcraft.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharcraft has

drawn the attention of this court towards the memorandum of

understanding which was entered into by the private respondents as

available in the communication dated 21.11.2016. This Court after

going through the said communication has found that the appointment

was made for smooth running of the project to be made by the

outsource agency. The nature of appointment has been referred thereto

2026:JHHC:10827

11

as would be evident from paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the communication

dated 21.11.2016. For ready reference the said paragraphs are quoted

herein under:

“6. You will act within the framework of organizational structure and

policies and directions as may be laid down by the management from

time to time. During the tenure of your employment with us, you will

not undertake any other employment or business activities, work or

public office of payment or otherwise except with written permission

of the Management. If you are found involved in any act which in the

opinion of the Company is detrimental to the interest of their business

interest, Management shall be at liberty to dispense with your services

immediately and without any notice or compensation. At all time

during the tenure of this Contract of employment you will be bound by

any Rules & Regulations enforced by the management from time to

time in relation to the conduct, discipline, leave, holidays or any other

matters relating to service conditions.

7. Ether party con terminate the contract during the existence of a

work assignment by providing a notice of One Month to the other

Party if you have completed 6 months or more else notice of Fourteen

days is to be provided. This is as per the terms laid out in the Letter of

Engagement. You shall at no point of time stake any claim or right to

claim employment, damage, loss or compensation of any sort

whatsoever against our clients. Your continuance in employment is

subject to your remaining physically and mentally fit. As and when

required, the Management may require you to submit yourself to

medical examination by a physician of the choice of the

management.”

11. This Court is now scrutinizing the advertisement which admittedly

has been issued by the Jharcraft. It is also admitted position that there is

no reference of the nature of appointment as to whether it would be

permanent or by way of contract. The advertisement reflects that the

appointment for the posts of Assistant General Manager, Central

2026:JHHC:10827

12

Government Scheme, Law Officer, Civil Engineer, Assistant General

Manager and Data Entry Operator were to be made, inviting

application from the candidates to submit application within the date

referred therein with the further instruction to get copy of the

application as available in the website. The said format of application

has been appended as Annexure-2.

12. The said application which contains a note in which it has been

referred that after scrutinizing the candidature of the candidates they

shall be called for interview which will be decided to be held on 26

th

and 27

th

October, 2016. It further appears from the Note (iii) that the

candidates have been asked to carry original documents at the time of

interview as proof of the details furnished in their application. It is thus

evident that the basis of recruitment is only on the basis of the

performance of the candidates in the interview which is to be assessed

by recruiting agency. The assessment of performance although is under

domain of the State but on the garb of said domain it cannot be

accepted that only on the basis of interview a post is to be filled up,

rather, in order to make transparency and fairness to fill up the public

post the entire process of selection must be followed which always

begins particularly from the written examination and, thereafter,

interview depending upon the number of the application which is to be

filled up by one or other applicants. The recruiting agency can come

out with a policy decision even to go for the preliminary examination

to shortlist the candidates but if it be the case to fill up the public post

and if the basis is only performance of one or other candidates in the

2026:JHHC:10827

13

interview, it cannot be said that the mandate of Article 14 and 16 have

scrupulously been followed which is necessary to be adhered

otherwise entire selection process will be in cloud and questioned.

13. Such reference is necessary to be made herein, since, it has been

argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the nature of

appointment cannot be construed to be on contract, since, there is no

reference in the advertisement regarding the nature of appointment.

This court is of the view that such argument cannot be accepted to be

correct so far as it relates to fulfilling the public posts which is being

decided to be made only on the basis of interview. Further this court

has considered the communication dated 21.11.2016 based upon that

the writ petitioners have joined their services wherein the specific

reference of the nature of appointment has been made at column nos. 6

and 7 as referring therein that the appointment will be for a particular

tenure based upon the contract of the employment. The aforesaid

clauses have been referred herein above.

14. This Court has made specific query from the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners that where is the order of engagement

upon which he became speechless as Annexrue-4 which has been

issued by the outsource agency is not the appointment letter. The said

letter reflects that the nature of appointment has been changed to that of

being made by the outsource agency.

15. This Court on such pretext posed a question what is the basis of

giving joining. Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that there is no

2026:JHHC:10827

14

appointment letter separate to that of Annexure-4. This court, therefore,

is of the view that Annexure-4 is the appointment letter, based upon

which the petitioners have joined the services.

16. The question is that once the offer of appointment has been

accepted and acted upon is it available to the petitioners to turn around

and question the terms and conditions of the appointment?

17. The answer is in negative based upon the proposition of Law as has

been rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Dr. G. Sarana

Vs. University of Lucknow & Ors. [(1976) 3 SCC 585]. For ready

reference, paragraph 15 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:-

"15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to

go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of

bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts,

he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the

interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the

Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before

the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable

recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to

turn round and question the Constitution of the Committee. This view

gains strength from a decision of this court in Manak Lal's case where

in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of

the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the

proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The

following observations made therein are worth quoting: It seems clear

that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable

report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that

he was confronted with unfavourable report, he adopted the device of

raising the present technical point."

18. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Prakash Shukla

Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors. [(1986) (supp) SCC 285], has

held that if a candidate had appeared in the examination without

protest, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under

Article 226 realizing that he would not succeed in the examination.

19. Further reference in this regard is made to the judgment

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Marripati Nagaraja and

2026:JHHC:10827

15

Others Vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. [(2007) 11 SCC 522]

wherein it has been held that if the appellants had appeared at the

examination without any demur, they did not question the validity of

fixing of the said date before the appropriate authority, therefore, they

were estopped and precluded from questioning the selection.

20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Vijendra

Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and

Others [(2011) 1 SCC 150 at paragraph 28 has held as under :-

"28.Besides, in K.H.Sirej v. High Court of Kerala in SCC paras 72

and 74 it was held that the candidates who participated in the

interview with knowledge that for selection they had to secure

prescribed minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could

not turn around and challenge that the said provision of minimum

marks was improper, said challenge is liable to be dismissed on the

ground of estoppel."

21. The further proposition as has been settled that once the contract

has been entered into the parties, contract being the bilateral, it is not

available for the parties to improve the terms and conditions of the

contract otherwise it will lead to rewriting the terms and conditions of

the contract. It is settled position of law that if any agreement has been

arrived at in between the parties, the same being the bilateral contract,

binds both the parties. It is further settled position of law that if any

terms and conditions have been agreed upon by the parties the same

cannot be relaxed by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India otherwise it will amount to re-write the terms and

conditions of contract as has been held in the case of Union Territory

of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors., reported in

2026:JHHC:10827

16

(1994) 2 SCC 70 wherein at paragraph 11 & 12 it has been held that

the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or rewrite the contract

between the parties. In the case of Polymat India (P) Ltd. and Anr.

Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2005) 9

SCC 174 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking aid of the

judgment rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.

M.K.J. Corp., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 428 has been pleased to

observe that “after the completion of the contract, no material alteration

can be made in its terms except by mutual consent”.

22. The nature of appointment as per the communication dated

21.11.2016 wherein also the name of the writ petitioners have been

referred and based upon that they have joined the services being

conscious with the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment as

per the conditions referred in clause 6 and 7 thereof, and now, they

have come to this court challenging the said terms and conditions.

23. This court is of the view that such is not available to be questioned

by the petitioners once they have acted upon on the basis of the

communication dated 21.11.2016 otherwise it will lead to rewriting the

terms and conditions of the contract.

24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this court is of the view that

the question which has been formulated as above has been answered

against the writ petitioners and, as such, the present writ petitions sans

merit and, as such, deserve to be dismissed.

25. Accordingly the aforesaid writ petitions stand dismissed.

2026:JHHC:10827

17

26. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed

of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

Date: 15/04/2026

KNR/AFR

Uploaded On:18/ 04/2026