2025:JHHC:10611 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5428 of 2024 ----- Megha Parashar, D/o Rajiv Kumar Parashar ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurva, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajyasabha, officiating at Activate Win Project Building, HEC Township, P.O.& P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 3.The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission situated at F 49/50, Sector III, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission having its office at Kali Nagar Chai Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi 5.The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar Chai Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi 6.The Director, The Directorate of Secondary Education, MDI Building, Jharkhand Mantralaya at P.S. Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Arun, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G. For the Resp-JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Jai Prakash, Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate …...... 05 / 07.04.2025: This case is detached from the main W.P.(S). No.582 of 2023. 2. Heard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC. All the parties have accepted that this case is covered by L.P.A. No.143 of 2024. 3. The issue in this case is covered by the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.02.2025 in L.P.A. No.143 of 2024 (Nirmal Pahan & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others). 4. In this case, the petitioner’s claim is that she had not received the personal communication for counselling thus, she could not appear in the counselling which resulted in her non-appointment. 5. The issue was considered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case and in paragraphs 35 and 36, the Hon’ble Division Bench held as 2025:JHHC:10611 follows:- “35. Admittedly, Clause 16(4)(ग)(viii) of the advertisement specifically provided for furnishing of information regarding the examination only through the website of the Commission. The appellants were fully aware of the same and they are also bound by the same. They cannot seek any relaxation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and cannot find fault with the Commission for adhering to the said norms. When opportunity for document verification was given at least three times to each of the appellants as pointed out by the learned Single Judge, and it was not availed by them because of their own negligence in not checking the website of the Commission from time to time, they are not entitled to any relief on the basis of sympathy. 36. Merely because some of the other successful candidates were informed about the dates of document verification through an advertisement or otherwise through email, parity cannot be sought as righty held by the learned Single Judge. Only a person who has enforceable right can claim parity with similarly situated persons but not otherwise.” 6. The Division Bench while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, set aside the plea of the petitioner claiming personal communication and proper communication. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that this case is squarely covered with the judgment of Division Bench, passed in the case of Nirmal Pahan (Supra). 8. Accordingly, this writ petition also stands dismissed in terms of judgment dated 28.02.2025 in L.P.A. No.143 of 2024. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S.