2025:JHHC:13094 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S) No. 5712 of 2006 ---- Shahnawaz Haque S/O Late Abdul Rauf, Resident of village-Maheshpur, P.O. & P.S. Angara, District Ranchi ....Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 3. The Additional Collector (Land Ceiling), Ranchi cum Senior Officer, Scrutiny Cell, Ranchi. 4. Ajay Kr Singh, S/O Baleshwar Singh, Resident of Village Hesal, P.O. P.S. Sukhdev Nagar, Ranchi. 5. Md Majid Alam, S/O Sirajuddin, Resident of S.D.O. Office, Ranchi. 6. Mahmood Alam, S/O Nezavat Hussain, Resident of Village, P.O & P.S. Burmu. Ranchi. 7. Ramadhar Singh, S/O Late Paras Singh, Resident of village Morhabadi, Hariar Singh Road, P.S. Bariatu, Ranchi ...Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioners : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Resp.-State : M/s. A.R. Kisku, Moushmi Chatterjee, A.C to G.A.-V -- 46/01.05.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) For quashing the Collectorate, Ranchi Order no. Nil dated 18/07/06 displayed on the notice board of the Collectorate Office, Ranchi issued under the seal and signature of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the respondent no. 2, whereby and whereunder a select list of 85 persons have been published for appointment on the post of peon, pursuant to advertisement published in a leading newspaper Prabhat Khabar dated 21/05/06 for such appointment, in contravention of the statutory rules made in Article 309 in utter violation of Constitutional scheme and provisions under Article 14 and 16/1 in exceeding the limits of reservation quota and selecting only 25 persons for such appointment from general category instead of 39 shown in the advertisement with improper intention, only to adjust/appoint persons of respondent's own choice, based on favouritism, discrimination and other illegal considerations. 2025:JHHC:13094 2 (ii) For setting aside the Collectorate Order dated 03/07/06 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (displayed on notice board of the Collectorate Office), whereby and whereunder 547 persons (as informed) have been declared successful in written test dated 25/06/06, 31 being the cut- off marks and have been called for interview on 14/07/06 onwards, depriving the petitioners and other deserving candidates, who did excellent/better performance in the written test and who were confident of getting at least 45 marks in the written test, i.e. much above the cut-off marks, thus, discriminating and frustrating the legal right of the petitioner and others for consideration of his selection for the aforesaid appointment. (iii) For a direction to respondents for producing the answer sheet of the petitioner along with the marks obtained by him in the written test dated 25/06/06 which has not been made available to him, inspite of his several requests in most improper and arbitrary manner violating the petitioner's right to get information under the Provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. (iv) For direction to the respondents to quash the entire selection process initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 21/05/06 for being it vitiated due to aforesaid irregularities and initiate fresh selection process based on propriety and equal treatment in strict adherence to statutory rules, provisions and constitutional scheme for such public employment like posts in question. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Advertisement published on 21.05.2006 and submits that the Petitioner was fully competent and entitled to get appointed as Peon, but even after a lapse of almost 20 years, he has not been appointed and no appointment letter has been issued to him. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the entire process of appointment pursuant to the Advertisement (Annexur-2); out of 39 seats (Unreserved) 25 have been selected and the entire process of appointment pursuant to said Advertisement has been completed long before. 2025:JHHC:13094 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute this fact; however he fairly submits that the writ petition was pending. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and after going through the documents available on record and also several orders passed in this writ application, no seat was reserved for the petitioner. Further, admittedly the entire process of appointment pursuant to the Advertisement (Annexure-2) is over; as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. 8. Pending I.As, if any, also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk