IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4702 of 2017 ----- 1.Sakari Hembrom, S/o Late Singa Hembrom, At Derasargi, P.O. Karaikela, P.S. Bandgaon, District Singhbhum West 2.Jainendra Kunkal, S/o Morab Singh Kunkal, At Roladih, P.O. Birwatonto, P.S. Majhari, District Singhbhum West 3.Bishwanath Chaki, S/o Kujri Chaki 4.Manki Melgandi, S/o Sangi Melgandi Nos.3 to 4 R/o Tilopada, P.O. Karaikella, P.S. Bandgaon, District Singhbhum West. 5.Krishna Kumar Matri, S/o Late Jagannath Matri, At- P.O. Chittimitti, P.S. Tantnagar, District Singhbhum West. 6.Krishna Biruli, S/o Sri Jaipal Singh Biruli, At Murtondag, P.O. Tantnagar, P.S. Manjhari, District Singhbhum West 7.Dubraj Bari, S/o Late Sadho Bari, R/o Ratangoi, P.O. Surjabasa, P.S. Tonto, District- Singhbhum West 8.Gopi Nath Gope, S/o Sri Churi Gope, R/o Ulihatu, P.O. Nakahasa, P.S. Muffasil, District Singhbhum West. 9.Charan Laguri, S/o Late Sagar Laguri, R/o Village & P.O. Siringsia, P.S. Tonto, District Singhbhum West. ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Personnel, Administration, Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Officiated at Project Building, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3.The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, F-49/50, Sector- III, Dhurwa, Ranchi 4.The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, Officiated at Kalinagar, Chaybagan, Sirkhatoli, Namkum, Ranchi ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, Advocate …...... 06 / 30.01.2025: In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- (A) For issuance of an appropriate direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding upon the concerned respondents to appoint them in the post of Constable by granting them 50% reservation in the aforesaid post as they were working as Home Guards and had already completed three years duration and six months duty after they were granted certificates of Home Guards and were entitled for that, but the persons who were Non-Home guards have been declared successful in the main examination and the petitioners were not included in the merit list, though only hundred Home Guards were declared successful in the main examination. 2. They were other petitioners in batch cases being W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2017 and analogous cases wherein similar prayer has been made and dismissed by the Division Bench. 3. It has been submitted by both the parties that this case is similar to those cases, which has already been dismissed. 4. Considering the submissions, the writ petition is dismissed in terms of order passed by Division Bench in W.P.(S) No. 6 of 2017 and analogous cases. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.