1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5099 of 2018 ------ Shobha Kumari, daughter of Late Ram Krishna Prasad, resident of Chetar Road, P.O. & P.S. Gumla, District Gumla. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Primary Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 3. Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 4. District Superintendent of Education, Gumla. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr. Aayush Avant Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI Mr. Rituraj, AC to SC-VI ------ 12/ 06.03.2025 The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to accept her joining on the post of Assistant Teacher. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed but was not allowed to join. 3. With the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble Patna High, Ranchi Bench, in C.W.J.C. No.3109 of 1992(R) (Shobha Kumari Vs. State of Bihar), which was disposed of vide order dated 16.02.1993 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as an untrained candidate on the date on which the selection was made and accept the joining and pass an appropriate order to that effect. In spite of the said direction, no order was passed by the respondents. 4. After 25 years, the impugned order as contained in Memo 2 No.1081/Gumla, dated 07.07.2018, was passed refusing to allow the petitioner to join on amongst one and other ground that the petitioner on that date has already attained 59 years of age. 5. The facts of the writ petition suggest that as on date the petitioner has already crossed the age of superannuation. Since the petitioner has already crossed the age of superannuation, no order can be passed directing the respondents to accept joining of the petitioner. If the petitioner was not allowed to join for any reason, which is arbitrary or is not in accordance with law then the petitioner is at liberty to claim damages against the respondents, for which she has to approach the appropriate Civil Court. 6. In an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not decide the question of damages. 7. Thus, this writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner, to approach the Civil Court claiming damages, if she so wishes. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant.Cp-2