2025:JHHC:19246 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 4438 of 2012 ---- Subodh Kumar, Son of Sri Jai Prakash Sah, resident of village Mohanpur, Post Mohanpur, Police Station Godda(M), District Godda ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, officiating from Office of Deputy Commissioner, Godda, Post Godda, Police Station Godda, District Godda ...Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner : M/s. Ritu Kumar, Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Raj, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, A.C to S.C(L&C)-I -- 08/15.07.2025 The writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs: i) For quashing the order dated 13.7.2012 (Annexure-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Laboratory Technician has been rejected. ii) For a further direction to the respondents to immediately and forthwith appoint the petitioner on the post of Laboratory Technician since he had been declared successful and the other candidates similarly situated to that of the petitioner have been allowed to join their duties. iii) For a further direction to the respondents to produce the entire records pertaining to the appointment of Laboratory Technician in pursuance to advertisement published in the widely circulated newspapers including "Prabhat Khabar' on 4.9.2011 to show and prove the illegality and irregularity committed in the said appointment. 2. After some argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the instant writ application may be disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the concerned Respondent raising his grievance as his caste certificates were not forged and that is one of the reason for rejecting his claim for appointment and if at all 2025:JHHC:19246 2 his case would be found genuine by the Respondents, he would get a chance of appointment in future, if possible. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents though supports the counter affidavit; however, does not object to the aforesaid contention of the Petitioner. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the concerned Respondent, if so advised. 5. Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk