RANCHI, India, July 28 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on June 30:

1) In these Writ Petitions, petitioners challenge clause (4) of Rule 8 and also sub clause (iii) of Clause (A) of the said Rule 8 of the Jharkhand Range Forest Officers Service (Recruitment, Promotion and other Conditions of Service) Rules,2024.

2) These rules have been framed by the State of Jharkhand after repealing the previous rules framed in the year 2018.

3) The principal contention of the petitioner is that these rules are contrary to the Rule 8 of the Entrance and Training Rules 2004 for the Forest Range Officers framed by the Central Government in consultation with the respective State Governments.

4) The Petitioner in W.P.(S) No.2287 of 2025 possesses a qualification of B.Sc in Information Technology. He joined the service of Forest Guard under the respondents/State authorities in 2014.

5) In 2024 an advertisement no. 4 of 2024 was issued for appointment to 170 posts of the Range Forest Officers and the qualifications prescribed inter alia possession of a degree in Civil, Mechanical, Chemical Engineering from any recognized university. Similar qualification was also prescribed in another advertisement no. 3 of 2024 for appointment to 78 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forest.

6) Admittedly, the Rules in question were framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the State of Jharkhand. It may be that the rules framed by the Central Government for the Entrance and Training purposes in 2004 prescribed something different from what the impugned Rules prescribed as eligibility criteria.

7) No precedent is cited by the counsel for the petitioner to show as to why the Rules framed by the Central Government should bind the State Government when the posts in question are within the purview of the State Government.

8) Also, counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that Courts do not have expertise in going into the educational qualification prescribed for filling up the particular post. Time and again the Supreme Court of India has held that matters of these natures are not within the purview of the Courts and unless serious infirmities in the prescription of qualification are established, normally Court should not interfere in this aspect.

9) In Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad1 , the Supreme Court held that prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy; the State as an employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility; and it is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications.

10) In Punjab National Bank v. Anit Kumar Das2 also it was held as under:

" 17.3 ... it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of the qualifications for any post and it is not for the courts to consider and assess. A greater latitude is permitted by the courts for the employer to prescribe qualifications for any post. There is a rationale behind it. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the need and interest of an institution or an industry or an establishment as the case may be. The courts are not fit instruments to assess expediency or advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily or fancifully in prescribing qualifications for posts."

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xw19PDA4qI39ZlTHZ5C6HqHg034Wq3RKUhCBMOeZDCJa&caseno=WPC/2882/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010153082025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.