2025:JHHC:24445 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.4215 of 2025 ----- Sunandan Kumar Singh, son of Vijay Krishn Singh, resident of village Simla, PO Kokraha, PS Chitra, District Deoghar, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3.The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Raj Bhasa & Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 4.The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 5.The Director, Primary Education (Directorate of Education), School Education and Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 6.The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad 7.The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad 8.The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra 9.The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra 10.Dilip Kumar Mahto, son of Ganesh Mahto, resident of village Murhul Sudi, PO Pirgul, PS Kasmar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 11.Prashant Kumbhkar, son of Shambhu Nath Kumbhakar, resident of village Kolakusna Kodadih, PO KG Asaram, PS Saraydhela, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand 12.Santosh Kumar Dutta, son of Dhirendra Nath Dutta, resident of village Pipratand, PO Latani, PS Tundi, District Dhanbad 13.Balram Mahatha, son of Late Umpadmahatha, resident of village Brahman, Laghla, PO Gal-Gal Tand, PS Chandankiyary, District Bokaro 14.Shabbir Ahmad, son of Nisar Ahmad, resident of Madina Mohalla, near Mazjid, PO and PS Madhupur, District Deoghar, Jharkhand. Md. Shajahan, son of Md. Qaiyum Ansari, resident of village Telmocho, PO Ramnagar Garh, PS Mahuda, District Dhanbad (number not given in the petition rather clubbed with respondent no. 14) … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Apurva, Advocate For the State : Mr. J. F. Toppo, GA-V Mr. N.A. Toppo, AC to GA-V …...... 02 /20.08.2025: Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner in this case has prayed to call for and quash 2025:JHHC:24445 2 the appointment of respondent nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 as it is his case that they have been appointed in non para category when they applied for para category. His further prayer is that he should be appointed against the vacancies in non para category in which he had applied for. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had applied for non para category and the cut-off marks so far as the category of the petitioner is concerned which is unreserved was 54.71 and the petitioner has obtained only 53.06 marks which is less than the cut-off marks. 4. After hearing the parties, admittedly the petitioner has applied as unreserved candidate in non para category. In the non para category the petitioner has obtained 53.06 marks. The final cut-off marks for unreserved category is 54.71 marks which is more than what the petitioner has obtained. 5. Further it is not the case of the petitioner that any person in the category of the petitioner obtaining lesser marks have been appointed. The petitioner has got no fundamental right to be appointed. Further in this case the petitioner has got lesser marks than the cut-off marks. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. This writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/