1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.5567 of 2024 ------ Pramod Kumar Jha, son of late Parash Nath Jha, resident of Prashidha Niwas, Bilasi Town, P.O.T. Bilasi, P.S. Deoghar, District Deoghar (Jharkhand). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, M.D.I. building, near Project Building, Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, M.D.I. Building, near Project Building, Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 4. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Circular Road, Lalpur, District Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, Advocate Mr. Harendra Kr. Mahato, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II Mr. Uttam Kumar Das, AC to GP-VI Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate ------ 05/ 10.01.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner praying for mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in High School against the vacant post pursuant to the Advertisement No.12/2008. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had obtained more than the qualifying marks, thus, he is entitled to be appointed as the posts are vacant. 4. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier and lastly in L.P.A. No.201 of 2012, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15th May, 2012, had directed that the case of the petitioner and others can be looked into and they will be offered appointment if they are eligible candidates according to their merits 2 in the posts advertised. Further, it was held that if any vacancy is there and the State wants to give them appointment, then the process may be completed within a period of two months from the date of the order. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the said order, the petitioner was not given any appointment. 6. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner has obtained 166 marks for subject English under unreserved category and the last selected candidate in English unreserved category has obtained 178 marks. 7. Thus, since no candidates having lesser mark than the petitioner were appointed in the category of the petitioner, the petitioner has got no rights to be appointed. Further, it has been submitted that the age of the petitioner is now 56 years and the age of retirement for Teacher is 60 years. The State also submits that the fresh Advertisement has been issued with fresh vacancies being Advertisement No.21/2016 and the selection process in subsequent advertisement is at the stage of completion. Thus, no appointment can be made pursuant to the Advertisement No.12/2008. 8. From the aforesaid facts, I find that the petitioner is already of 56 years and further no person having obtained lesser mark than the petitioner was appointed in his category, thus, there is no right of the petitioner to be appointed. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant.Cp-2