2026:JHHC:23475-DB

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

L.P.A No.538 of 2025

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,

Government of Jharkhand having office at Project

Building, Dhurwa PO Dhurwa PS Jagarnathpur District

Ranchi.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School

Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having

office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.

Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of

Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.

Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

… … Respondents/Appellants

Versus

1. Abhijeet Kumar Sinha Son of Late Devendra Kishore

Prasad aged about 42 years resident of: Ramnagar Road,

Near Immanbara, PO: Boddom Bazar, PS: Sadar

Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).

Writ Petitioner/ Respondent

2. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its

Secretary, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar,

P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

3. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff

Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali,

Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

4. University Grants Commission (UGC), having office

Bahadur Shahjafar Marg, New Delhi, P.O. & P.S. -New

Delhi, District-New Delhi-110002 (Delhi)

5. National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE),

having office at G-7, Sector 10, Dwarka, Near Metro

Station, New Delhi, PO & PS: Dwarka, District New Delhi-

110075 (Delhi).

Performa Respondents/ Respondent

with

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

2

L.P.A. No. 376 of 2024

-------

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy

Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating

from Project Bhawan, Dhurwa., P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.

Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.

...Respondents/Appellants

versus

1.Mukesh Ranjan, aged about 33 years, son of Shri

Kouleshwar Das, resident of New Colony, Dipugarha, P.O.

Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District - Hazaribagh.

……Petitioner/Respondent

2.The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi

through its Secretary officiating from Chai Bagan, Kali

Nagar, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

3.The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, Ranchi officiating from Chai Bagan, Kali

Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

... Respondents/Proforma Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-------

For the Appellants: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III

Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG III

For the Res.-writ petitioners

: Mr. Amritans Vats, Advocate

Mr. Arpan Manjash Ekka, Advocate

Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate

Mr. Shivam Pathak, Advocate

For the JSSC :Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate

Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate

For the NCTE :Ms. Kumari Ruchika, Advocate

[AC to Ms. Kushboo Katuraka, Adv]

For the UGC : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate

-------------------

C.A.V. on 6

th

July, 2026 Pronounced on 06/08/2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

3

I.A. No. 13992 of 2025 in LPA No. 538 of 2025

1. The instant application has been filed for condonation of

delay of 251 days in filing the appeal.

2. It has been submitted that the impugned order was

passed on 22.11.2023 to which the appellant informed the

Department and file was put up before the Under Secretary

to examine the legal impact of outcome of order dated

22.11.2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5104 of 2023. On

10.01.2024, the Director of the Department was informed

about the same requesting to take appropriate steps with

respect to filing of appeal against order dated 22.11.2023

passed in W.P. (S) No. 5104 of 2023. The Director, after

examining the record, forwarded the same to the Under

Secretary for preparing grounds of appeal on 24.01.2024.

3. In the meantime, the JSSC, Ranchi was requested to

provide necessary document so that appropriate steps be

taken at the earliest.

4. On 01.02.2024, the case was put up before the Law

Executive with a direction to prepare grounds of appeal.

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal were prepared and the

same was put up before the Legal Department. Thereafter,

the Under Secretary presented the grounds of appeal before

the Additional Secretary of the Department. Thereafter,

several rounds of discussions were held and after discussion

finally grounds of appeal were approved by the appellant-

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

4

department and a decision was taken to seek legal opinion

from the learned Advocate General, State of Jharkhand for

filing appeal against order dated 22.11.2023 passed in W.P.

(S) No. 5104 of 2023. Accordingly, on 20.02.2024, the entire

record along with grounds of appeal was endorsed to the

learned Advocate General, State of Jhark hand for his

valuable opinion with respect to filing of appeal.

5. On 22.02.2024, after examining the entire record along

with the grounds of appeal, learned Advocate General

advised the department to file appeal against order dated

22.11.2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5104 of 2023.

6. Thereafter, on 27.02.2024, the Deputy Secretary of the

Department was authorized to prefer appeal, however, due to

transfer of the Deputy Secretary in the light of order and

direction passed in administrative side by the Personnel

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, the

Joint Secretary of the department was authorized to prefer

the appeal against order dated 22.11.2023 passed in W.P.

(S) No. 5104 of 2023.

7. Accordingly, on 28.02.2024, the case was allotted to the

office of learned Senior Standing Counsel-I to prefer memo of

appeal against order dated 22.11.2023 passed in W.P. (S)

No. 5104 of 2023, who prepared the memo of appeal and

sent the same to the department for its approval. Thereafter,

a series of discussions was held to discuss the implication of

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

5

order dated 22.11.2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5104 of 2023

and after getting the approval from the department finally

the appeal was filed on 18.07.2024.

8. Submission has been made that for the reasons

aforesaid, which was beyond the control of the appellants,

the delay of 251 days has been caused in preferring the

appeal.

9. Further submission has been made that there are good

grounds in assailing order dated 22.11.2023 passed in W.P.

(S) No. 5104 of 2023, by preferring the instant appeal and if

the instant delay condonation application will not be

allowed, the appellants will suffer irreparable loss.

10. Referring to the order/judgment passed in State of

Manipur & Ors vs. Koting Lam kang [(2019) 10 SCC 408]

submission has been made that in that case also there was

delay of 312 days in preferring the appeal by the State,

which was refused to be condoned by the High Court, but

the Hon‘ble Apex Court after considering the reasons

assigned therein has condoned the delay in preferring the

appeal.

11. Therefore, prayer has been made to allow the

instant application and condone the delay of 251 days in

preferring the appeal.

12. While, on the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent no. 1-writ petitioner pressing the reply to

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

6

Interlocutory Application has submitted that the reasons for

condoning the day and the cause, which has been shown for

taking legal opinion and all other sanction and approval for

filing the appeal is not sufficient to condone the delay.

13. Further submission has been made that even

otherwise also in the entire Interlocutory Application there is

explanation of only 205 days and no explanation of

remaining 46 days as the total delay occurred in filing the

memo of appeal is 251 days.

14. Referring to order dated 29.04.2024 passed in L.P.A.

No. 554 of 2022, wherein the appeal was preferred after

delay of only 198 days, submission has been made that the

delay condoning application was rejected on the ground that

no bona fide on the part of the State has been shown

considering the catena of judgments passed by Hon‘ble Apex

Court.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 -writ

petitioner on the aforesaid ground has submitted that the

delay condonation application requires to be rejected.

16. We have learned counsel for the parties on the delay

condonation application.

17. Admittedly, there are delay of 251 days in preferring

the appeal, which has been explained by the appellant in the

delay condonation application in detail.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

7

18. Law is well settled that besides length of delay it is

the sufficiency of satisfactory explanation is a decisive factor

for condonation of delay in any limitation petition, which is

filed.

19. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for

the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases. The

power conferred upon the Court under this provision is not

unfettered discretion; rather, it is conditioned upon the

existence of ―sufficient cause‖ supported by a satisfactory

explanation for the delay. While considering such

applications, the Court must remain mindful that the

ultimate objective is to advance substantive justice and

ensure that a litigant is not non-suited merely on technical

grounds of limitation. For ready reference, Section 5 of the

Limitation Act is quoted as under:

“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. -

Any appeal or any application, other than an application

under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the

prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the

court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal

or making the application within such period.”

20. It is an admitted position that the grant of extension

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not an automatic

right of the litigant but rests upon the judicial discretion of

the Court. Such discretion is exercised only when the delay

is shown to be genuine and bona fide. The statute requires

the existence of ―sufficient cause‖ for condonation, though

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

8

the term itself is not exhaustively defined in the Act.

Consequently, the determination of sufficiency is left to the

wisdom of the Court, to be assessed on a case-by-case basis,

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each matter.

21. Thus, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is

designed to safeguard the cause of substantive justice by

preventing cases from being dismissed solely on technical

grounds of limitation. The provision enables the Court to

condone delay in filing appeals or applications where the

party demonstrates sufficient cause, thereby ensuring that

genuine claims are adjudicated on their merits. However,

this relief is not intended to protect litigants who are

negligent or indolent; it applies only where the delay is bona

fide, unavoidable, and justifiable. In essence, Section 5

strikes a balance between the need for certainty in limitation

law and the imperative of advancing justice.

22. This Court, on the touchstone of above golden

principles has proceeded to examine the submissions

advanced on behalf of parties so that a case may not be

thrown out on pure technicalities.

23. On perusal of the delay condonation application, it

appears that reason has been assigned that after passing of

the impugned order on 22.11.2023 the file was put up before

the Under Secretary to examine the legal impact of outcome

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

9

of order dated 22.11.2023 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5104 of

2023, as it had wide impact.

24. On 10.01.2024, the Director of the Department

informed about the same requesting to take appropriate

steps with respect to filing of appeal and the Director, after

examining the record, forwarded the same to the Under

Secretary for preparing grounds of appeal on 24.01.2024.

Furthermore, since the appointment was made by the

Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, as such the JSSC

was requested to provide necessary document so that

appropriate steps be taken at the earliest.

25. Thereafter, the file was placed before the Law

Executive on 01.02.2024, with a direction to prepare

grounds of appeal and the same was put up before the Legal

Department. Thereafter, the Under Secretary presented the

grounds of appeal before the Additional Secretary of the

Department and after discussion finally grounds of appeal

was approved by the appellant-department and a decision

was taken to seek legal opinion from the learned Advocate

General, State of Jharkhand for filing appeal and

accordingly, on 20.02.2024, the entire record along with

grounds of appeal was endorsed to the learned Advocate

General, State of Jharkhand for his opinion for filing appeal.

26. On 22.02.2024, the learned Advocate General

advised the department to file appeal and thereafter, on

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

10

27.02.2024, the Deputy Secretary of the Department was

authorized to prefer appeal, however, due to transfer of the

Deputy Secretary in the light of order and direction passed

in administrative side by the Personnel Administrative

Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, the Joint Secretary of

the department was authorized to prefer the appeal.

27. Thereafter, on 28.02.2024, the case was allotted to

the office of learned Senior Standing Counsel-I to prefer

memo of appeal, who prepared the memo of appeal and sent

the same to the department for its approval. This caused

delay of 251 days in filing the instant appeal.

28. Undoubtedly, the delay in the present matter is

considerable; however, this Court is duty-bound to assess

the application for condonation of delay not merely on the

quantum of time elapsed but also on the qualitative

parameter of sufficiency of explanation.

29. The decisive factor in such petitions is whether the

applicant has furnished a satisfactory and bona fide

justification for the delay. Thus, while the length of delay is a

relevant consideration, it is the adequacy of the cause shown

that ultimately governs the exercise of judicial discretion

under the law of limitation.

30. It needs to refer herein that the Hon‘ble Apex Court

while dealing with the issue of delay of 312 days in the case

of State of Manipur & Ors vs. Koting Lam kang (supra)

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

11

has held that it was necessary for the Court to also be

conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in

reaching a government decision and the routine way of

deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal.

Reference in this regard be made to relevant paragraphs the

said judgment which reads as under:

“6. Insofar as the refusal by the High Court to condone

the delay of 312 days in the RFA preferred by the State of

Manipur and others, it is apparent that the appellants did

prefer the appeal at first instance on 15-6-2017 before the

District Judge. But since this was before the wrong forum

and it was filed after a delay of about eleven months and

there is no explanation for the time taken by the State

between 18-7-2016 and 15-6-2017, the delay in the RFA

before the High Court was not condoned. In fact the Court

found that the State has not shown as to what prevented

them from preferring the appeal before the District Judge

(wrong forum), until 15-6-2017. The Court also said that

the latitude in applying the standards of “sufficient cause”

test is not attracted, in the instant case.

7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for

the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay

and the slow pace in reaching a government decision and

the routine way of deciding whether the State should

prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even

while observing that the law of limitation would harshly

affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal

filed by the State, should not be condoned.

8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to

the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning

where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This

in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest

of the State. If the appeal filed by the State are lost for

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

12

individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually

be individually affected.

31. Upon consideration of the reasons assigned in the

application for condonation of delay, and as discussed

hereinabove and further taking into consideration the settled

position of law as settled by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, this

Court is of the view that the delay has occasioned primarily

due to the inherently slow pace of governmental

decision-making and the routine manner in which t he

question of preferring an appeal by the State is processed.

The explanation thus reflects systemic procedural delay

rather than deliberate inaction, and accordingly falls within

the ambit of ―sufficient cause‖ contemplated under Section 5

of the Limitation Act.

32. In view of the aforesaid reasons, discussions, and

precedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in

order to advance substantive justice, the instant matter

ought not to be dismissed merely on technical grounds.

Accordingly, the delay of 251 days in filing the appeal is

condoned.

33. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application

being I.A. No.13992 of 2025 stands allowed and disposed of.

I.A. No. 8855 of 2024 in LPA No. 376 of 2024

34. The instant application has been filed for

condonation of delay of 229 days in filing the appeal.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

13

35. It has been submitted that the impugned order was

passed on 05.10.2023 in W.P. (S) No. 2715 of 2019 and it

was found that the compliance has to be done by the

Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, accordingly file was

arranged and put up before the concerned officer.

36. Thereafter, on 20.10.2023, vide letter no. 2869

issued to the Sikkim Manipal University in order to verify

whether BCA Degree has been issued under Science Stream,

as the writ petitioner was holding BCA Degree from Sikkim

Manipal University. Thereafter, on 29.11.2023 reminder was

sent to the Sikkim Manipal University for such information

and accordingly on 01.12.2023 required information was

received.. Accordingly, on 05.12.2023, the JSSC was

requested to do the needful in the matter.

37. However, in the internal departmental meeting of

JEPC, the matter was discussed and it was decided to prefer

appeal. Accordingly, the legal retainer of the concerned

department was directed to draft the grounds of appeal on

13.12.2023. On 28.12.2023 the file with grounds of appeal

was put up before the concerned and the same was

approved by the Director on 03.01.2024.

38. On 18.01.2024, the legal opinion in the matter was

sought for and thereafter on 13.02.2024, the entire file was

handed over to the concerned Law Officer for doing needful

for filing appeal and thereafter the appeal was drafted,

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

14

however, some documents were found missing, which was

arranged and handed over.

39. Accordingly, on 31.05.2024, the memo of appeal

was finalized and further sent for approval. Thereafter, Law

Officer was authorized for filing appeal and accordingly

appeal was filed, which caused delay of 229 days in

preferring the appeal.

40. Submission has been made that for the reasons

aforesaid, which was beyond the control of the appellants,

the delay of 229 days has been caused in preferring the

instant appeal.

41. Further submission has been made that there are

good grounds in assailing the impugned order, by preferring

the instant appeal and if the instant delay condonation

application will not be allowed, the appellants will suffer

irreparable loss.

42. Referring to the order/judgment passed in State of

Manipur & Ors vs. Koting Lam kang [(2019) 10 SCC 408]

submission has been made that in that case also there was

delay of 312 days in preferring the appeal by the State,

which was refused to be condoned by the High Court, but

the Hon‘ble Apex Court after considering the reasons

assigned therein has condoned the delay in preferring the

appeal.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

15

43. Therefore, prayer has been made to allow the

instant application and condone the delay of 229 days in

preferring the appeal.

44. While, on the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent no. 1-writ petitioner pressing the reply to

Interlocutory Application has submitted that the reasons for

condoning the day and the cause, which has been shown for

taking legal opinion and all other sanction and approval for

filing the appeal is not sufficient to condone the delay.

45. Referring to order dated 29.04.2024 passed in L.P.A.

No. 554 of 2022, wherein the appeal was preferred after

delay of only 198 days, submission has been made that the

delay condoning application was rejected on the ground that

no bona fide on the part of the St ate has been shown

considering the catena of judgments passed by Hon‘ble Apex

Court.

46. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 -writ

petitioner on the aforesaid ground has submitted that the

delay condonation application requires to be rejected.

47. We have learned counsel for the parties on the delay

condonation application.

48. Admittedly, there are delay of 229 days in preferring

the appeal, which has been explained by the appellant in the

delay condonation in detail.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

16

49. The law is well -settled that, in matters of

condonation of delay, the decisive consideration is not

merely the length of delay but the sufficiency of the

explanation tendered. A satisfactory and bona fide

justification constitutes the determining factor in limitation

petitions, and it is this qualitative assessment of cause

shown that governs the exercise of judicial discretion in

condoning delay.

50. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for

the extension of the prescribed period in certain cases. The

power conferred upon the Court under this provision is not

unfettered discretion; rather, it is conditioned upon the

existence of ―sufficient cause‖ supported by a satisfactory

explanation for the delay. While considering such

applications, the Court must remain mindful that the

ultimate objective is to advance substantive justice and

ensure that a litigant is not non-suited merely on technical

grounds of limitation. For ready reference, Section 5 of the

Limitation Act is quoted as under:

“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. -

Any appeal or any application, other than an application

under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the

prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the

court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal

or making the application within such period.”

51. It is an admitted position that the grant of extension

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not an automatic

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

17

right of the litigant but rests upon the judicial discretion of

the Court. Such discretion is exercised only when the delay

is shown to be genuine and bona fide. The statute requires

the existence of ―sufficient cause‖ for condonation, though

the term itself is not exhaustively defined in the Act.

Consequently, the determination of sufficiency is left to the

wisdom of the Court, to be assessed on a case-by-case basis,

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each matter.

52. Thus, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is

designed to safeguard the cause of substantive justice by

preventing cases from being dismissed solely on technical

grounds of limitation. The provision enables the Court to

condone delay in filing appeals or applications where the

party demonstrates sufficient cause, thereby ensuring that

genuine claims are adjudicated on their merits. However,

this relief is not intended to protect litigants who are

negligent or indolent; it applies only where the delay is bona

fide, unavoidable, and justifiable. In essence, Section 5

strikes a balance between the need for certainty in limitation

law and the imperative of advancing justice.

53. This Court, on the touchstone of above golden

principles has proceeded to examine the submissions

advanced on behalf of parties so that a case may not be

thrown out on pure technicalities.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

18

54. The impugned order dated 05.10.2023 in W.P. (S)

No. 2715 of 2019 required compliance by the Jharkhand

Staff Selection Commission. In this process, verification was

sought from Sikkim Manipal University regarding the

petitioner‘s BCA degree, with reminders issued and

information received on 01.12.2023.

55. Thereafter, JSSC was requested to act, and in an

internal meeting of JEPC it was decided to prefer an appeal.

The legal retainer was directed to draft grounds on

13.12.2023, which were approved by the Director on

03.01.2024. Subsequent legal opinion was obtained, and the

file was handed over to the Law Officer on 13.02.2024 for

drafting the appeal. Missing documents were later arranged,

and the memo of appeal was finalized on 31.05.2 024,

approved, and filed thereafter. This sequence of procedural

steps resulted in a delay of 229 days in preferring the

appeal.

56. Undoubtedly, the delay in the present matter is

considerable; however, this Court is duty-bound to assess

the application for condonation of delay not merely on the

quantum of time elapsed but also on the qualitative

parameter of sufficiency of explanation.

57. The decisive factor in such petitions is whether the

applicant has furnished a satisfac tory and bona fide

justification for the delay. Thus, while the length of delay is a

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

19

relevant consideration, it is the adequacy of the cause shown

that ultimately governs the exercise of judicial discretion

under the law of limitation.

58. It needs to refer herein that the Hon‘ble Apex Court

while dealing with the issue of delay of 312 days in the case

of State of Manipur & Ors vs. Koting Lam kang (supra)

has held that it was necessary for the Court to also be

conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in

reaching a government decision and the routine way of

deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal.

Reference in this regard be made to relevant paragraphs the

said judgment which reads as under:

“6. Insofar as the refusal by the High Court to condone

the delay of 312 days in the RFA preferred by the State of

Manipur and others, it is apparent that the appellants did

prefer the appeal at first instance on 15-6-2017 before the

District Judge. But since this was before the wrong forum

and it was filed after a delay of about eleven months and

there is no explanation for the time taken by the State

between 18-7-2016 and 15-6-2017, the delay in the RFA

before the High Court was not condoned. In fact the Court

found that the State has not shown as to what prevented

them from preferring the appeal before the District Judge

(wrong forum), until 15-6-2017. The Court also said that

the latitude in applying the standards of “sufficient cause”

test is not attracted, in the instant case.

7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for

the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay

and the slow pace in reaching a government decision and

the routine way of deciding whether the State should

prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

20

while observing that the law of limitation would harshly

affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal

filed by the State, should not be condoned.

8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to

the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning

where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This

in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest

of the State. If the appeal filed by the State are lost for

individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually

be individually affected.

59. Upon consideration of the reasons assigned in the

application for condonation of delay, and as discussed

hereinabove and further taking into consideration the settled

position of law as settled by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, this

Court is of the view that the delay has occasioned primarily

due to the inherently slow pace of governmental

decision-making and the routine manner in which the

question of preferring an appeal by the State is processed.

The explanation thus reflects systemic procedural delay

rather than deliberate inaction, and accordingly falls within

the ambit of ―sufficient cause‖ contemplated under Section 5

of the Limitation Act.

60. In view of the aforesaid reasons, discussions, and

precedents, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in

order to advance substantive justice, the instant matter

ought not to be dismissed merely on technical grounds.

Accordingly, the delay of 229 days in filing the appeal is

condoned.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

21

61. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application

being I.A. No.8855 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 538 of 2025 & LPA No. 376 of 2024

62. Since the issues involved in both appeals are

identical, and as such at the request of learned counsel for

the parties, the matters have been tagged together.

Accordingly, they have been heard conjointly and are being

disposed of by this common order.

Prayer in L.P.A. No. 538 of 2025:

63. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of

the Letters Patent, is directed against comm on

order/judgment dated 22.11.2023 passed in W.P. (S) No.

5104 of 2023 and other batch matters, by which, the writ

petition filed by the writ petitioners were allowed by

quashing the impugned show cause as contained in Memo

no. 2778 R dated 05.03.2019, issued by the Respondent No.

5.

Prayer in L.P.A. No. 376 of 2024:

64. The instant intra-court appeals under Clause 10 of

the Letters Patent, is directed against common

order/judgment dated 05.10.2023 passed in W.P. (S) No.

2715 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ

petitioner was allowed by quashing and setting aside part of

Notice No. 3462 dated 17.05.2019 issued by the

Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

22

Commission, Ranchi, by which, the candidature of the

petitioner for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained

Teacher has been rejected on the ground that he has not

submitted the degree certificate as per the advertisement

and directed the respondent -State to appointment the

petitioner on the said post.

Factual Aspect involved in L.P.A. No. 538 of 2025

65. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, floated

an advertisement inviting applications from eligible

candidates for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate

Teacher. Pursuant thereto, the writ-petitioner having

requisite qualification in terms of the advertisement applied

for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers

Subject-Physical Education, Category-Unreserved from the

District-Chatra.

66. The writ petitioner appeared in the written

examination and on being shortlisted, was called for

counselling for verification of the documents. However, at

the said stage, the petitioner was issued show cause notices

stating that he did not have the requisite qualification as

their Degrees of Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA)/

Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) did not come

under the Arts/Science/Commerce stream as per the said

advertisement. The petitioner has obtained the Degree of

‗BCA‘ from Indira Gandhi National Open University, New

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

23

Delhi in the year 2005 which is recognised by the UGC. In

addition to those Degrees, he has also obtained the Bachelor

Degree in Physical Education from recognized University.

67. It is the case of the writ petitioner that a fter

issuance of the said show cause notices to the petitioner, he

duly replied the same explaining inter alia that he was

possessing the requisite qualification in terms with the said

advertisement and his Bachelor Degrees was under the

Science/Commerce stream and hence there was no

justification in issuing the impugned show cause notices on

the ground that he did not possess the required qualification

as per the said advertisement.

68. In order to substantiate the aforesaid fact, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a coordinate

Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 05.10.2023 passed

in W.P.(S) No. 2715/2019 (Mukesh Ranjan Vs. The State

of Jharkhand & Ors.) has already held that the Degree of

‗BCA‘ has to be treated as the Bachelor Degree in Science.

69. Similarly, vide judgment dated 18.10.2023 passed

in W.P.(S) No. 920/2019 (Raj Dev Singh & Anr. Vs. The

State of Jharkhand & Ors.), it has further been held by a

coordinate Bench of this Court that the Degrees of ‗BBA‘ and

‗BCA‘ have to be treated as the Bachelor Degrees in

Commence and Science respectively.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

24

70. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC submits

before the writ Court that the candidature of the petitioners

has not been found in conformity with the said

advertisement since they did not possess the requisite

qualification as per the said advertisement particularly

because the Bachelor Degree in ‗BBA/BCA‘ did not come

under the Arts/Science/Commence stream.

71. The learned writ Court, after hearing the parties

allowed the writ petition after quashing the impugned show

cause and directed the respondents-authorities to appoint

the petitioner on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the

concerned subject, which is the subject matter of instant

intra-court appeal.

Factual Aspect involved in L.P.A. No. 376 of 2024

72. An advertisement being CGTTCE -2016 was floated

by the respondent-JSSC for appointment to the post of

Graduate Trained Teachers in all the District of Jharkhand

including Hazaribagh.

73. As per Advertisement, for appointment to the post of

Graduate Trained Teachers in Physical Education, a

candidate should have obtained 45% marks either in Arts,

Commerce or Science from recognized University of the State

or Central Government and he/ she should also possess a

certificate of Physical Education from a recognized

University.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

25

74. The petitioner being eligible in all respect, applied

for the post of Physical Education in Hazaribagh district

under Scheduled Caste category. Thereafter, the petitioner

appeared in the written test and got qualified in the same.

Subsequently he was called for documents verification vide

notice of the Commission dated 14.12.2018.

75. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner

appeared before the respondent-JSSC and submitted all the

testimonials including the certificate of degree of Bachelor in

Physical Education issued by Vinoba Bhave University as

well as the certificate of degree of Bachelor in Computer

Application from Sikkim Manipal University.

76. In the result published by Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, Ranchi, it appears that the last selected

candidate of Schedule Caste Category had obtained 136

marks whereas the petitioner had obtained 140 marks. The

petitioner received a letter dated 07.01.2019 from

Commission informing him that his educational certificate of

Bachelor in Computer Application was required and he was

directed to submit the same by 15.01.2019.

77. In pursuance of the said letter, the petitioner

submitted the required certificate before the respondent no.

4, which was duly received in Commission‘s office on

13.01.2019. But, to his utter surprises, a notice No. 3462

dated 17.05.2019 was issued under the signature of the

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

26

Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, Ranchi whereby the case of petitioner for

appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher was

cancelled on the ground that petitioner has not produced his

educational certificates.

78. On enquiry by the petitioner, it has been told on

behalf of the Commission that his certificate of Bachelor in

Computer Application is not being found as Graduate degree

since he has not done his Graduation either of the subject

under Arts, Science or Commerce.

79. Assailing the order of Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, petitioner preferred writ petition i.e. W.P.(S) No.

2715 of 2019 which was heard along with W.P.(S) No. 5700

of 2018 and other analogous cases. As the issues involved in

all the writ petitions were same and similar, after framing

the issues and hearing the parties, the writ petition was

disposed of vide common order dated 11.04.2022.

80. Since the issue involved in case of the present

petitioner was different from other cases, which was not

brought to the notice of this Court and hence the petitioner

preferred L.P.A. No. 297 of 2022. After hearing the parties,

the matter was remitted back vide order dated 21.06.2023 to

consider case of the present petitioner afresh taking into

account the plea raised by the petitioner regarding Gazette

Notification, which was not argued and considered by this

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

27

Court earlier. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner

preferred writ being W.P. (S) No. 2715 of 2019.

81. The learned writ Court, after hearing the parties,

allowed the writ petition and direction was given to the State

to appoint the petitioner to the said post within a period of

eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of

the order, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.

Submission on behalf of appellants-State:

82. Submission has been made that the impugned

judgment erroneously directs to recommend and appoint the

writ petitioners overriding the explicit terms of the

recruitment advertisement and regulatory frameworks

governing educational degrees.

83. Submission has been made that as per the

mandatory guideline, as mentioned at page 40 of the revised

Brochure for CGTTCE -2016, the minimum educational

qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant

Teacher under the Physical Education subject is – ―A

Bachelor‘s degree in Arts, Science, or Commerce with

minimum 45 % marks (40% for SC/ST candidates) and a

recognized degree of physical education..‖

84. Further submission has been made that even the

same has been incorporated in the advertisement which is

annexed with the memo of appeal. It is settled law that

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

28

terms of advertiseme nt are binding guidelines for

recruitment.

85. It is contended that the both the writ petitioners-

respondent have degree in Bachelor of Computer Application

and on the date of completion and submission, the BCA

degree was not structured as nor equivalent to, a traditional

Bachelor‘s degree in Arts, Science or Commerce, as required

by the State Government.

86. Learned State Counsel emphatically submitted that

the degree of the writ petitioners-respondents were well

before 2014 and the results were officially declared on

15.03.2015, as such at that time, the 2009 UGC Notification

was in force. Critically, the 2009 Notification listed degrees

purely alphabetically and did not categorize or specify the

BCA or BBA degree under any specific stream [Arts, Science

or Commerce]. It was treated strictly as an independent

vocational/professional degree program.

87. Further submission has been made that University

Grants Commission (UGC) subsequently published its

Gazette Notification on 05.07.2014 specifying degrees

stream-wife, under which BCA was listed under the Science

Stream and BBA was listed under Commerce Stream.

However, this notification was published after the

declaration of the respondents‘/writ petitioners‘ result.

Furthermore, the UGC vide clarifying letter dated

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

29

10.07.2014 mandated that Universities must strictly adhere

to the new approved nomenclature and framework specified

in July, 2014 Gazette. The mandate applies to degrees

conferred after the enforcement of the notification. Since the

respondents‘/writ petitioners‘ results were declared on

15.03.2014, his qualification cannot be automatically

retrofitted into 2014 stream categorization.

88. Further referring to the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of UGC, submission has been made that it has been

confirmed that prior to 2014, the UGC specified degrees

alphabetically and not stream-wise.

89. In alternative, submission has been made that if

this Court comes to a conclusion that the BCA degree of

respondent is of graduation in science, as because

respondent-writ petitioner holds an academic foundation at

the 10+2 level, the same be treated as specific to the factual

matrix of the instant case. For all other candidates who are

not from I.Sc. background, holding a BCA degree should not

be considered to be one of graduate in science, and their

stream evaluation must remain bound strictly to the rules,

dates of notification, and university standards applicable to

their unique profiles.

90. In the aforesaid background, submission has been

made that while quashing and setting aside the impugned

order, the State‘s right be protected to enforce the

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

30

advertisement guidelines, while molding the relief exclusively

for the respondent-writ petitioner.

Submission on behalf of JSSC

91. Learned counsel for the JSSC supported the version

of the State and has submitted that both the writ

petitioners-respondent have degree in Bachelor of Computer

Application and on the date of completion of their BCA, such

degree was not structured as traditional Bachelor‘s degree in

Arts, Science or Commerce, as r equired by the State

Government, rather, it was purely a professional/vocational

degree and admittedly, their degrees are well before 2014

and the results were officially declared on 15.03.2014, as

such at that time, the 2009 UGC Notification was in force. At

that time, it was treated strictly as an independent

vocational/professional degree program.

92. Therefore, submission has been made that since the

writ petitioners were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as

mentioned in the advertisement, therefore, no appointment

ought to have been given in their favour.

93. Further submission has been made that if the

degree of the writ petitioners, which admittedly are prior to

2014, if allowed to be treated as degree in science or other

stream, it will open a flood-gate creating a chaotic situation

and would be in total departure of the UGC Guidelines.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

31

Submission on behalf of UGC:

94. Learned counsel for the respondent -UGC has

submitted that the BCA is a specified degree under Section

22 of the UGC Act, 1956 and prior to 2014, the UGC

specified degrees alphabetically, not stream-wise. However,

in the notification issued on 05.07.2014, degrees were

specified stream-wise and the BCA was listed under Science

Stream.

Submission on behalf of respondent no. 1 -writ

petitioners:

95. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 -writ

petitioners defending the order passed by learned writ court

has submitted that candidature of the writ petitioners-

respondent no. 1 herein was rejected solely on the ground

that they do not fulfill the requisite qualification for

graduation but both the writ petitioners have degrees of

graduation in Bachelor of Computer Application. As per the

terms and conditions of the advertisement, the minimum

eligibility criteria required for Trained Graduate Teacher in

Physical Education having graduation in either

Arts/Science/Commerce with 45 % marks , which both the

writ petitioners is possessing, as the degree of BCA falls

under the science stream in the light of notification dated 5

th

July-11

th July, 2014 issued by the UGC. It has been

submitted that from bare perusal of said notification, it is

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

32

evident that degree of BCA has been shown as Sc ience

Stream.

96. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ respondent no.

1 herein has submitted with force that Notification dated 5

th

July-11

th July, 2014 is in the form of clarity as in the first of

the said notification it is mentioned that – ―the information

is presented in a tabular form for clarify.‘ From this, it is

evident that UGC has given certain clarification regarding

the stream of degrees like BCA the language of said

notification is only clarificatory in nature and no

amendments have been made in the nomenclature of the

said degree nor the same has been re-structured which will

be evident from serial of the notification.

97. Submission has been made that so far argument

advanced on behalf of the appellant-State that the said

notification is prospective in nature, hence the degrees

obtained by the writ petitioners which is before the date of

notification cannot be treated as the degree under science

stream, has no leg to stand since the first part of the

notification itself says that it is clarificatory in nature, which

says about belongingness of the stream.

98. It has further been submitted that in the last para

of the said notification, i.e., at paragraph 18, the UGC has

further clarified regarding status of de-specified degree,

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

33

wherefrom it is evident that the degree of BCA has not been

de-specified.

99. Therefore, submission has been made that degree of

the writ petitioners i.e., the degree of BCA has neither been

de-specified nor the nomenclature of the same has been

changed rather only the clarification has been made

regarding the belongingness of the stream in year 2014.

100. Referring to counter affidavit dated 06.04.2026,

swear by D.E.O, Hazaribagh, which has been filed in

compliance of order dated 27.01.2026, wherein it has been

admitted that writ petitioner, namely, Mukesh Ranjan has

completed his Intermediate Examination, under the Science

Stream, accordingly, Mukesh Ranjan holds a BCA Degree,

which may be considered falling within the Science Stream.

101. Further submission has been made that writ

petitioner, namely, Abhijeet Kumar Sinha, has also

completed Intermediate Examination under the Science

Stream.

102. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ respondent

no(s). 1 herein has further submitted that action of the

respondent-JSSC is highly arbitrary since on the one hand,

JSSC is disputing the degree of writ petitioners herein

whereas other candidates having BCA degree have been

allowed to work as Physical Education teacher having the

degree of BCA.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

34

103. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that out of the total eight orders passed by the

writ Court, the State Government has preferred appeal [LPA]

against only four orders of the writ petition, which amounts

to favoritism to specific candidates, which cannot be

appreciated as the State is considered to be model employer

and in no manner, the State is supposed to violate the

principle as laid down in Article 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India.

104. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners-respondent

no.1 on the aforesaid ground has submitted that the

order/judgment passed by the learned writ court requires no

interference by this Court.

Analysis:

105. This Court has heard learned counsel for the

parties, perused the documents in particular the notification

of the UGC as also the impugned orders passed by learned

writ Court.

106. This Court, before entering into the legality and

propriety of the impugned orders, needs to refer herein that

one Mukesh Ranjan, writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2715 of

2019, the subject matter of L.P.A. No. 376 of 2024, praying

therein for quashing of Notice No. 3462 dated 17.05.2019

issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission [JSSC],

whereby the candidature of the petitioner for appointment

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

35

on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher [TGT], subject-

Physical Education has been negated. The writ petition was

dismissed vide order dated 11.04.2022, which was

challenged by filing intra-court appeal being L.P.A. No. 297

of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.06.2023

and the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 passed in W.P.(S)

No. 2715 of 2019 was set aside the matter was remitted to

the writ Court for passing the order afresh. For ready

reference, order dated 21.06.2023 passed in L.P.A. No. 297

of 2022 is quoted as under:

“05/ 21.06.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the

parties, this Court passed the following,

(Per Ananda Sen, J.)

O R D E R

1.In this Intra Court Appeal, the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(S)

No.2715 of 2019 has assailed the final order dated

11.04.2022 passed by learned Single Judge, by which

writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant

submitted that the petitioner-appellant is Bachellor in

Computer Application, which is science subject, but the

respondents have not treated the appellant as a Science

Graduate, thereby rejected hi s candidature for

appointment. He contends that even persons obtaining

lesser marks than the petitioner were selected for the post

of Graduate Trained Teacher, but, for the reasons best

known to the respondents, petitioner has not been

selected, which is illegal. He refers to the Gazette of India

dated July 5th – July 11th, 2014, whereby as per the

University Grants Commission, Specification of Degrees,

Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) is also treated to

be a Bachelor‟s Degree in Science. He submits that the

petitioner has also done his Bachelor in Physical

Education. Thus, he prays that the writ petition of the

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

36

petitioner be allowed as the learned Single Judge has

failed to take into consideration the aforesaid fact.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand Staff

Selection Commission submits that the petitioner is

claiming equivalence of degree, which is beyond the

jurisdiction of this Court. As per him, advertisement was

for filling up different posts including the post of Teacher in

Physical Education, for which a person had to be Graduate

in either of the streams, i.e., Arts, Science or Commerce.

Admittedly, the petitioner is neither Graduate in Arts,

Science or Commerce, rather, he is Bachelor in Computer

Application, thus, his case was not considered and was

also rightly rejected by learned Single Judge.

4. We have heard the counsel for the parties. An

advertisement was published for filling up the post for

appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers in the District

of Jharkhand. The post of Graduate Trained Teachers in

Physical Education was also advertised. As per the said

advertisement, the candidate should be a graduate having

obtained 45% marks in Arts / Science or Commerce from a

recognized University by the State and he should also

possess a Certificate of Physical Education from a

recognized institution. Petitioner is a Bachelor of Physical

Education and he is also a Bachelor of Computer

application. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected

as he could not produce the necessary certificates.

Petitioner heavily relies upon the Gazette of India dated

July 5th – July 11th, 2014. By referring to the said Gazette

Notification issued by the University Grants commission, in

relation to specification of degrees, he submits that

Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) is a subject within

the science stream, thus, he should be treated as Science

Graduate.

5. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, at paragraph

21, have stated that the Bachelor Degree of Computer

Application is not valid for appointment of Graduate

Trained Teacher for Physical Education in terms of

advertisement. Respondents, also in their counter affidavit,

at paragraph 25, have taken a stand that the Graduation

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

37

Degree of the petitioner is not in „Science‟, thus, his

candidature was rejected.

6. In the writ petition, petitioner has specifically taken a

stand, by referring to the Gazette Notification dated July

5th – July 11th, 2014 that Bachelor of Computer

Application has been included within Science stream.

Aforesaid statement and the existence of the Gazette

Notification has not specifically been denied by the

respondents in their counter affidavit, though in the

counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 on

09.02.2021, a plea has been taken that since the eligibility

condition in the advertisement is specific, equivalent

degree will not suffice. The Graduation should be with the

specialized subject, i.e., „Science‟.

7. From the impugned judgment, we find that the petitioner

has not even taken the aforesaid ground of Gazette

Notification while arguing the matter before the learned

Single Judge, as there is no reference of consideration of

the same in the impugned judgment, though the same was

on record. The consideration by the learned Single Judge

was only on two issues, which is evident from paragraph

25 of the impugned judgment, which are as follows: -

(i) Whether petitioners are entitled for appointment in the

non-schedule areas in the subjects other than „History and

Civics‟ when appointments have already been made in

non-schedule areas in the subjects of „History and Civics‟?

(ii) Whether Hon‟ble Supreme Court has stayed

appointments in the non -scheduled areas or the

respondents are free to make appointments in view of

clarifications issued by the Hon‟ble Apex Court?

8. Thus, in view of the fact that the petitioner-appellant

herein has taken the plea of existence of the Gazette

Notification dated July 5th – July 11th, 2014, which

provides that Bachelor of Computer Application will be

treated as „Science‟ subjects, we feel it proper to remit the

matter to the learned Single Judge to consider and decide

the writ petition afresh, including the applicability of the

Gazette Notification dated July 5th – July 11th, 2014 so

far as this petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the final

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

38

order dated 11.04.2022 passed by learned Single Judge,

so far as it relates to the Writ Petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2715

of 2019 is concerned, is hereby set aside and the matter is

remitted to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ

petition of the petitioner-appellant herein afresh.

9. This Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed. There shall

be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this

order shall be issued as per the Rules.”

107. With the direction aforesaid, the matter was re-

heard by the learned writ Court and the writ Court after

hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the writ

petition vide order dated 05.10.2023, which is the subject

matter of L.P.A. No. 376 of 2024 holding that in the

notification dated 5

th – July 11

th , 2014 issued by the UGC

check, the degree of Bachelor of Computer Application has

been found place in Scie nce stream and accordingly

direction was passed to appoint the petitioner on the said

post.

108. Similarly, Abhijeet Kumar Sinha [writ petitioner-

respondent no. 1 in L.P.A. No. 538 of 2025] also preferred

writ being W.P. (S) No. 5104 of 2023, which was allowed vide

order dated 22.11.2023 considering the judgment passed in

the case of Mukesh Ranjan, as discussed above, an d

direction was passed to consider the candidature of the

petitioner on the said post.

109. When the order passed by the writ court was not

complied with, both the writ petitioners, namely, Mukesh

Ranjan [writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 in L.P.A. No. 376 of

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

39

2024] and Abhijeet Kumar Sinha [writ petitioner-respondent

no. 1 in L.P.A. No. 538 of 2025] filed contempt petitions and

during pendency of the contempt petition, the order passed

by the writ court has been complied with and joining letter

were given in favour of petitioners, subject to outcome of the

L.P.A., which has been preferred by the appellants-State.

110. Pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner, namely,

Mukesh Ranjan joined the serviced on 01.10.2024 and the

writ petitioner, Abhijeet Kumar Sinha, joined the services on

04.04.2025 and since then admittedly they are discharging

their duties. Check

111. Now coming to the merit of the case, admittedly the

candidature of the writ petitioners have been rejected solely

on the ground that they do not fulfill the requis ite

qualification for graduation. Further admitted fact is that

both the writ petitioners [respondent no. 1 in both the

L.P.A(s)] have degree of Graduation in Bachelor of Computer

Application [BCA].

112. The writ petitioner-respondent no. 1, in L.P.A. No.

538 of 2025, has obtained the Degree of ‗BCA‘ from Indira

Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi in the year

2005. Whereas, the writ petitioner-respondent no.1, in L.P.A.

No. 376 of 2024 has obtained the degree of Bachelor in

Computer Application from Sikkim Manipal University.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

40

113. Furthermore, both the writ petitioners [respondent

no.1] have also obtained degree in Physical Education from

the recognized University, which is not in dispute.

114. Now coming to the ‗terms and conditions‘ of the

advertisement, wherein the minimum eligibility required for

Trained Graduate Teacher in Physical Education, which says

that the candidate must have degree in

Arts/Commerce/Science with minimum 45% marks and in

case of SC/ST, 40% marks, from a recognized university. For

ready reference, the same is quoted as under:

7

. . III- .

9300-34800

.

4600

45

40

115. Furthermore, in the appointment rules, which was

notified vide Notification No. 434, dated 01.03.2016 being

Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teachers and

Non-Teaching Staff Appointment and Service Conditions

Rules, 2015, the same thing has been mentioned. For ready

reference, the relevant rule with respect to minimum

education qualification required for physical education

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

41

teacher is mentioned in Chapter-VI Clause-9 (1) (i), is quoted

hereunder as: -

"

,

45

40%

116. Thus, from the appointment rules, as notified vide

Notification No. 434, dated 01.03.2016 , and as per

advertisement, the minimum educational qualification is

Graduation either in Science/Commerce/Arts with 45%

marks.

117. Therefore, the moot question which requires

consideration is as to:

“Whether the degree of Bachelor of Computer

Application (BCA), as acquired by the writ

petitioners [respondent no. 1 herein in both the

L.P.A(s)], would fall under the science stream.”

118. It needs to mention herein that prior to 2014, the

University Grants Commission specified degrees

‗alphabetically‘ and not ‗stream-wise‘. So far the degree of

‗Bachelor of Computer Application‘ is concerned, it has been

specified by the UGC under Section 22 of the UGC Act,

which would be found from the list of degrees specified by

the UGC under Section 22 of the UGC Act, which is part of

UGC April-2009 notification published in the Gazette of

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

42

India dated May, 23-May, 29, 2009, wherein the BCA degree

is mentioned as serial No. 32.

119. For ready reference, relevant portion of April, 2009

notification is quoted as under:

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION

New Delhi-110002, the April 2009

No. F.1-10/2004 (CPP-II)-In exercise of the powers

conferred by Sub-Section (3) of Section 22 of the UGC Act,

1956 (3 of 1956) as modified upto December, 1985 and in

continuation of Gazette of India Notification No: 29 dated

19th July, 2008. The University Grants Commission with

the approval of the Central Government of India (letter No.

F. 5-1/2008-Ul dated 23rd February, 2008) hereby

specifies the following new degrees and change* of Hindi

Version of the expansion of three degrees for publication in

the Gazette of India.

XXX XXX XXX

The Degrees Specified by the UGC under Section 22 of the

UGC Act.

Sl. No. Abbreviation of

Degree

Expansion of Degree

32. BCA Bachelor of Computer

Applications

120. From the above, it is evident that under UGC

Notification of April, 2009, as under Section 22 of the UGC

Act, at serial number 32, only abbreviation of degree has

been mentioned as ‗Bachelor of Computer Applications‘.

There is no specific mention that whether, the degree of BCA

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

43

falls under science/arts or commerce stream or it is

professional/vocational course and not coming under the

fold of science, arts or commerce stream.

121. However, later on, in the year 2014, vide March,

2014 Notification the new notification in this regard has

come, in exercise of power conferred under Section 22 (3) of

the UGC Act which confers power upon the UGC for

specifying the nomenclature of the degree for the purpose of

said Section. For ready reference, Section 22 of the UGC Act,

1956 is quoted as under:

“University Grants Commission Act, specif ying the

nomenclature of degree for the purposes of the said

Section.

“Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956:-

22. Right to confer degrees (1) The right of conferring or

granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University

established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a

Provisional Act or a State Act or an institution to be a

University under Section 3 or an institution specifically

empowered by an Act or Parliament to confer to grant

degrees.

(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1), no person or

authority shall confer, or grant, or hold himself or itself out

as entitled to confer or grant, any degree.

(3) For the purposes of this section 'degree' means any

such degree as may, with the previous approval of the

Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the

Commission by notification in the official Gazette.”

122. It also needs to quote the relevant portion of March,

2014 Notification of UGC, wherein it has been mentioned

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

44

that broad discipline-wise nomenclatures of degrees at all

levels of higher education should be taken as the specified

degree, which the universities/institutions must adhere to.

For ready reference, relevant portion of March, 2014

Notification of UGC is quoted as under:

“UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION SPECIFICATION OF

DEGREES

NEW DELHI, March, 2014

NO. F. 5-1/2013 (CPP-II)--In exercise of the

powers conferred by sub- sub-Section (3) of Section 22 of

the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3 of 1956)

and in supersession of all earlier Gazette Notifications

pertaining to specification of degrees, the University

Grants Commission (UGC) with the approval of the Central

Government hereby specifies the nomenclature of degree

for the purposes of the said section.

SPECIFIED DEGREES

Broad discipline-wise nomenclatures of degrees at all

levels of higher education should be taken as the specified

degree, which the universities/institutions must adhere to,

are given below. Alongside the nomenclature of the

degrees, minimum entry-level qualifications and duration

of the programmes have also been indicated. The

information is presented in a tabular form for

clarity. In the bottom -most row of each table,

nomenclatures of degrees that are presently in vogue

in some institutions were found to be neither

conventional, nor reflective of a real innovation in

knowledge and are de -specified with the suggestion

that the same may be restructured/changed as

suggested therein.

xxx xxxx xxxx xxx

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

45

Sciences

Abbreviated Expanded Level Minimum

Duration

(Years)

Entry

Qualification

56. BCA Bachelor of

Computer

Applications

BACHELOR‟S 3 10+2

123. From bare perusal of the said notification of March,

2014, it is evident that in the said notification at serial no.

56, the degree of ‗Bachelor of Computer Application‘ has

been shown as under Science Stream.‘

124. At this juncture, learned State Counsel as also

learned counsel for the JSSC has drawn attention of the

Court towards General Instruction of the March, 2014

Notification wherein it has been mentioned that ‗All the

changes in the nomenclature of the degree, as notified

herewith will come into effect from the date of their notification

in the official Gazette.‘ Basing on this General Instruction, as

mentioned in the March, 2014 Notification, submission has

been made that since BCA degree has been notified under

science stream after promulgation of the March, 2014 UGC

Notification and the writ petitioners since admittedly have

obtained the degree of BCA prior to the year 2014, therefore,

the degree of BCA as obtained by the writ petitioners does

not come under science stream.

125. Controverting the same, learned counsel for the writ

petitioners-respondent no. 1 herein, putting much emphasis

on the language as under the March, 2014 Notification, has

submitted that the said notification is in two parts; the first

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

46

part specifically mentions that it is clarificatory in nature

whereas the second par to March, 2014 Notification is with

respect to re-structuring the degree and its nomenclature

and it is nowhere mentions that for the first time, any degree

in particular BCA comes under Science Stream rather, it has

been clarified that BCA comes under Science Stream.

126. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts and argument

advanced on behalf of parties, we have gone through 2009

Notification as also 2014 Notification.

127. It is evident that in the 2009 Notification, the degree

has been specified by the UGC under Section 22 of the UGC

Act and at serial no. 32, only abbreviation of degree ‗BCA‘

has been mentioned as ‗Bachelor of Computer Applications‘.

Here, it is not specifically mentioned that whether the BCA

comes under Science Stream or in any other stream.

128. Thereafter, 2014 Notification has come, in exercise

of power conferred under Section 22(3) of the UGC Act,

1956, wherein it has specifically been mentioned that in

exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sub-Section (3) of

Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (3

of 1956) and in supersession of all earlier Gazette

Notifications pertaining to specification of degrees, the

University Grants Commission (UGC) with the approval of

the Central Government hereby specifies the nomenclature

of degree for the purposes of the said section.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

47

129. It has further been mentioned that broad discipline-

wise nomenclatures of degrees at all levels of higher

education should be taken as the specified degree, which the

universities/institutions must adhere to.

130. In the 2014 Notification, it has further specifically

been mentioned that – “The information is presented in a

tabular form for clarity.” This itself suggests that nothing new

has been added or deleted rather whatever mentioned in the

tabular form is only for clarification.

131. At this juncture it needs to refer herein the settled

position of law that any legislation or instrument having the

force of law, which is clarificatory or explanatory in nature

and purport and which seeks to clear doubts or correct an

obvious omission in a statute, would generally be

retrospective in operation, vide State of Bihar v. Ramesh

Prasad Verma, (2017) 5 SCC 665 .

132. In Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit v.

Manu, (2023) 19 SCC 30 the Hon‘ble Apex Court has

observed that if a statute is curative or merely clarificatory

of the previous law, retrospective operation thereof may be

permitted.

133. Thus, if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of

the previous law, retrospective operation is generally

intended. However, it is necessary to consider whether the

said order was a clarification or a substantive amendment.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

48

134. In the instant case herein in the 2014 Notification,

it has further been mentioned that – “In the bottom-most row

of each table, nomenclatures of degrees that are presently in

vogue in some institutions were found to be neither

conventional, nor reflective of a real innovation in knowledge

and are de-specified with the suggestion that the same may

be restructured/changed as suggested therein.”

135. This Court has gone through the tabular form as

mentioned in the 2014 Notification, wherefrom it is ample

clear that at serial no. 6, the Degree of „Bachelor of Computer

Applications‟ [BCA] has been mentioned und er ‗Science

Stream‟.

136. Thus, it is evident that degree of BCA has only been

clarified regarding ‗belongingness of the stream‟ only and

nothing else.

137. Besides that, some degrees have been re-structured

as under serial no. 59 and 71, like B.S.Sc. has re-structured

as ‗B.Sc. (Sanitary Science); B.Ch.E has been re-structured

as B.Tech/BE (Chemical Engineering) etc. Further, at last

paragraph of the 2014 Notification, the UGC has clarified

regarding status of de-specified degree.

138. But herein it is not the case that degree of BCA has

re-structured or de-specified, rather, only the dispute is with

respect to ‗belongingness of the stream‟ i.e., whether the BCA

falls under science stream or not and the same has been

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

49

clarified as under 2014 Notification that ‗BCA‘ comes under

‗Science Stream‘.

139. It needs to refer herein that there is no other main

stream other than Science, Arts or Commerce streams. The

degree of the candidates may fall under either of these

streams i.e., Science, Arts or Commerce. But the State

Government has failed to make out a case even on that

ground and as such it cannot be a case that the BCA does

not fall in any of these three streams.

140. Furthermore, admittedly both the writ petitioners

[respondent no. 1] have completed their 10+2 with Science

Stream, as such otherwise also they have all qualification to

take admission under ‗Science Stream‘.

141. In the entirety of facts, discussions and notifications

as mentioned above, it is evident that the degree of BCA has

been recognized by the UGC as under 2009 Notification and

by 2014 Notification, the UGC has clarified that BCA comes

under Science Stream.

142. This Court, after coming to such conclusion, has

gone through the impugned order and found therefrom that

the learned writ Court, af ter considering the above

notifications i.e., 2009 Notification and 2014 Notification,

has come to the conclusion that BCA degree, as possessed

by the writ petitioners [respondent no. 1 herein], comes

under ‗Science Stream‘, which cannot be faulted with.

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

50

143. Accordingly, the issue as framed by this is decided

in favour of the writ petitioners-respondent no. 1 herein and

against the respondents-State and it is answered that the

degree of Bachelor of Computer Application [BCA], as

acquired by the writ petitioners (respondent no. 1 herein), is

a degree falls under the science stream.

144. Turning now to the impugned orders, it is manifest

that the learned Writ Court, upon due consideration of the

Gazette Notification dated 5th–11th July, 2014—wherein it

is expressly stipulated that the Bachelor of Computer

Application (BCA) shall be treated as a Bachelor‘s Degree in

Science has allowed the writ petitions.

145. Based upon the aforesaid the learned Court has

further concluded that the Bachelor of Computer Application

has been included within the Science Stream as such Degree

of ‗BCA‘ has to be treated as the Degree in ‗Science‘ stream

and accordingly has observed that the respondents cannot

debar the petitioners on the plea that they are not a science

graduate. If petitioner fulfills all the requisite qualification as

per the advertisement, having more marks than the last

selected candidate, his candidature cannot be rejected

merely on the ground that he has obtained BCA Degree,

which does not fall within the category of science.

146. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of

the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned

2026:JHHC:23475-DB

51

Writ Court are founded upon sound reasoning. The aforesaid

determination cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity

and, accordingly, warrants no interference.

147. Further, at this stage, it requires to mention herein

that when the order passed by the writ court was not

complied with, both the writ petitioners, namely, Mukesh

Ranjan [writ petitioner-respondent no. 1 in L.P.A. No. 376 of

2024] and Abhijeet Kumar Sinha [writ petitioner-respondent

no. 1 in L.P.A. No. 538 of 2025] filed contempt petitions and

during pendency of the contempt petition, the order passed

by the writ court has been complied with and joining letter

were given in favour of petitioners, subject to outcome of the

instant intra-court appeals which has been preferred by the

appellants-State. Therefore, since both the writ petitioners

[respondent no.1] are working as such no direction is

required for accepting their joining etc.

148. Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeals fail and

are dismissed.

149. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stand(s)

disposed of.

I Agree (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)

6

th

August, 2026

A.F.R/ Alankar/Uploaded on 06.08.2026