2025:JHHC:32132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6227 of 2019 ---- Susanta Misra, aged about 26 years, S/O Swapan Misra, Resident of Village Chota Sushni, under P.O. Rasiknagar and P.S. Boram, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. .......Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, under Post Office, Dhurwa, P.S. Janarnathpur, Ranchi. 2. Secretary Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Kalinagar Chaibagan, under Post Office and Police Station- Namkum, District- Ranchi. 3. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Kalinagar, under Post Office and Police Station,- Namkum, District Ranchi. .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, Advocate Mr. D.K. Malityar, Advocate For the Resp. State : Mr. Divyam, A.C to S.C-IV For the Resp. JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate --- 12/ Dated: 16.10.2025 1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for a direction upon the concerned Respondent for issuance of Appointment Letter to the Petitioner who has successfully qualified in Prelims, & Mains examination and also in the Medical Board securing more marks than the last selected candidates in the unreserved category in the examination for the post of constable conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has been categorically stated that petitioner has completed his matriculation examination from the State of West Bengal and as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement as well as Appointment Rules, the minimum educational qualification for the post of Constable in Jharkhand Constable Competitive Examination-2015 is matriculation from the educational institution of the State of Jharkhand. 2025:JHHC:32132 2 The further stand in the counter-affidavit with regard to the said criteria is that the same is with consonance with the condition stipulated in Paragraph-3(ii) of the झारखǷ राǛ पुिलस िनयुİƅ िनयमावली (पुिलस सेवा के िलए भतŎ पȠित), 2014 [hereinafter to be referred as Rule, 2014] published vide Notification No. 6992 dated 20.10.2014. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the only ground for not considering his case is that he did matriculation from the State of West Bengal and the said Rule has already been set-aside by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Ramesh Hansda and another v. The State of Jharkhand and others” passed in W.P(C) No. 3894 of 2021 with analogous cases. He further referred to the question/issue framed by the Division Bench. For brevity, the same is extracted herein below:- “(I).Whether the requirement made under the amendment by way of substitution in the amended Rule, 2021 as under Rule 2 requiring a candidate to pass Matriculation/10th examination and Intermediate/10+2 examination from the recognized educational institutions situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand, while, such condition has been relaxed so far as it relates to the candidates who are under the coverage of the benefit of reservation policy framed by the State of Jharkhand, can be considered to be reasonable classification or unreasonable classification within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?” 4. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court and submits that the said Rule has been declared to be ultra vires. For brevity, the relevant paragraph nos. 56, 57,58 and 59 are extracted herein below:- “56. Herein, it has been argued that the insertion of additional qualification, as has been inserted herein, cannot be construed to be eligibility rather the same is in addition to the eligibility criteria, which is evident from the phrase ‘in addition to the eligibility criteria’ by which the candidate is required to pass Matriculation/10th and Intermediate/10+2 examination from the recognized institutions situated within the State of Jharkhand. Therefore, this Court is of the view that what has been argued on behalf of State of Jharkhand, that the eligibility for the purpose of recruitment will come under the scope of Section 12 of the Act, 2008, is not sustainable. 57. Herein, the rule has been framed, by amending Rule 5 of Rules, 2015 by way of substitution of Rule 2 in Rules, 2021, inserting the phrase ‘in addition to the eligibility criteria’ by which the candidate is required to pass Matriculation/10th and Intermediate/10+2 examination from the recognized institutions situated within the State of Jharkhand. Since the additional qualification is not coming under the fold of eligibility and as such the same is outside the scope of Section 12 and, therefore, the provision which has been inserted to that effect cannot be construed to come under the scope of Section 12 of the Act, 2008. 58. This Court, on the basis of discussions made herein above, is of the view that Section 12 of the Act, 109 2008 does not confer power upon the State to deprive a class of candidate from participating in the process of selection, since the same will not come under the fold of implementing the provisions of the Act, 2008. 59. This Court, in the entirety of facts and discussions as also judicial pronouncements, is of the considered view that the impugned rules, as contained under Rules, 2021 are discriminatory on the touchstone of Article 14 of the 2025:JHHC:32132 3 Constitution of India not based upon intelligible differentia rather are unreasonable, and as such the Rule 2 and Rule 7 of the Rules, 2021 are held to be invalid, as the same are in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the issues framed by this Court are answered in favour of petitioners.” 5. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment that the criteria fixed in the Advertisement has been held to be invalid and ultra vires to the Constitution by the Division Bench, it has been contended by the Ld. Counsel that the Petitioner should be issued the Appointment Letter. 6. In reply to the aforesaid contention, Ld. Counsel for the respondent- Commission submits that the said criteria which was indicated in the Advertisement with regard to passing of the matriculation examination from the State of Jharkhand is with consonance with the condition stipulated in Paragraph-3(ii) of झारखǷ राǛ पुिलस िनयुİƅ िनयमावली (पुिलस सेवा के िलए भतŎ पȠित), 2014 [Jharkhand Rajya Police Niyukti Niyamavali (Police Sewa Keliye Bharti Paddhati), 2014] dated 20.10.2014. 7. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-B of the counter-affidavit wherein there is a specific stipulation that candidate must have educational qualification situated in territorial jurisdiction of Jharkhand. For brevity, relevant clause is extracted herein below:- “3. योƶता :- (i) …………………. (ii) शैƗिणक योƶता - झारखǷ राǛ के शैƗिणक सं˕ानों से दसवीं कƗा उȅीणŊ “ 8. Apart from the aforesaid legal hindrance, Ld. Counsel for the respondent-Commission further submits that the entire selection process is over in the year 2017 itself and the Petitioner knocked the door after the entire process is over. 9. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record; admittedly, passing of matriculation from any recognized institution within the territory of State of Jharkhand was a criteria in the Advertisement, but the said criteria has been held to be invalid and ultra vires. At the same time, from record it also appears that the said criteria in the advertisement was also in consonance with the condition stipulated in Paragraph-3(ii) of झारखǷ राǛ पुिलस िनयुİƅ िनयमावली (पुिलस सेवा के िलए भतŎ पȠित), 2014 [Jharkhand Rajya Police Niyukti Niyamavali (Police Sewa Keliye 2025:JHHC:32132 4 Bharti Paddhati), 2014] dated 20.10.2014 and further after perusing the judgment passed by the Division Bench, the condition stipulated in Paragraph-3(ii) of झारखǷ राǛ पुिलस िनयुİƅ िनयमावली (पुिलस सेवा के िलए भतŎ पȠित), 2014 [Jharkhand Rajya Police Niyukti Niyamvali (Police Sewa Keliye Bharti Paddhati), 2014] has not been considered. Moreover, the said Clause of झारखǷ राǛ पुिलस िनयुİƅ िनयमावली (पुिलस सेवा के िलए भतŎ पȠित), 2014 has also not been assailed in this writ petition coupled with the fact that the entire selection process was over in the year 2017 itself; as such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. 11. Pending I.As., if any, stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 16th October, 2025 Vedanti/- Uploaded on 06/11/2025