2025:JHHC:35149 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6391 of 2019 --- 1. Upendra Kumar Das, aged about 26 years, son of Suresh Ravidas 2. Jitendra Kumar Das, aged about 26 years, son of Suresh Ravidas 3. Arti Kumari, aged about 21 years, wife of Upendra Kumar Das Serial Nos. 1 to 3 are resident of Village-Ukrid, P.O. Soso, P.S.- Rajrappa, District-Ramgarh 4. Pankaj Kumar, aged about 23 years, son of Narayan Mahto, resident of village and Post Office-Ichatu, P.S.- Rajrappa, District-Ramgarh. 5. Bharti Kumari, Aged about 24 years, wife of Manoranjan Kumar 6. Rani Kumari, aged about 23 years, D/O Rajnikant Mahto Serial Nos. 5 and 6 are resident of village-Madgi, P.O. Honhe, P.S.-Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh 7. Parwati Kumari, aged about 22 years, D/O Jagarnath Mahto, resident of Village-Kulhi, P.O.-Potamdaga, P.S.- Rajrappa District- Ramgarh 8. Monika Kumari, aged about 28 years, wife of Fuleshwar Mahto, resident of Village-Beyang, P.O.-Bariatu, P.S.- Rajrappa, District-Ramgarh 9. Sonika Kumari, aged about 23 years, D/O Suresh Mahto, resident of Village-Hohad, P.O.- Sikni, P.S.- Rajrappa, District Ramgarh 10. Duleshwari Kumari, aged about 21 Years, wife of Sandip Kumar Choudhary 11. Priyanka Kumari, aged about 21 years, D/O Sri Punit Choudhary Serial Nos. 10 and 11 are resident of Village- Jamira, P.O. - Jamira, P.S.-Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh. 12. Gulshan Kumar, aged about 25 years, son of Late Dhiraj Mahto, resident of Village and Post Office-Ichatu, P.S.- Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh 13. Muni Devi, aged about 26 Years, wife of Surendra Rajak 14. Kamli Devi alias Kamli Kumari, aged about 31 years, wife of Late Reshamlal Mahto Serial Nos. 13 and 14 are resident of Village and P.O.- Honhe, P.S. Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh. 15. Geetanjali Kumari, aged about 24 years, D/O Nageshwar Choudhary, resident of Village-Jamsingh P.O-Ichatu, P.S.- Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh. 16. Annu Kumari, aged about 22 years, D/O Kunwar Mahto 17. Nipun Kumar Choudhary, aged about 22 years, son of Sri Ajay Kumar Choudhary. Serial No.16 and 17 are resident of Village-Usra, Р.О.-Korche, P.S.-Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh. 18. Paneshwari Kumari, aged about 23 years, D/O 2025:JHHC:35149 2 Bhuneshwar Mahto, resident of Village and P.O.-Soso, P.S.- Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh. 19. Arjun Kumar, aged about 28 years, son of Late Amarlal Mahto 20. Sunil Kumar Mahto, aged about 22 years, son of Harayan Mahto Serial No. 19 and 20 are resident of Village and Post Office-Ichatu, P.S.-Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh. 21. Ranjeet Kumar Saw, aged about 29 years, son of Tulsi Saw, resident of Village-and P.O.- Chitarpur, P.S. Rajrappa, District-Ramgarh 22. Sulekha Kumari, aged about 28 years, wife of Sadesh Kumar Mahto, resident of Village-Koihara, P.O.-Rajrappa Project, P.S.-Rajrappa, District-Ramgarh. 23. Krishna Kumar aged about 27 years, son of Shivlal Mahto, resident of Village-Heramdaga, P.O.-Chari, P.S.-Gola, District-Ramgarh. 24. Sanny Deol, aged about 27 years, son of Sohan Mahto resident of Village-Kusumdih, Kalyanpur, P.O.- Chari, P.S.- Gola, District- Ramgarh. ……..Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & PS-Dhurwa. District-Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman Selection Committee, Jharkhand Home Guards, Ramgarh, P.O. P.S. and District- Ramgarh. 4. The District Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guards, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S and District- Ramgarh. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh, P.O..P.S. and District- Ramgarh. ……..Respondents W.P(S) No. 468 of 2020 -- 1. Nirmal Kumar Ravi, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Rameshwar Ram, R/o village-Parsotiya, PO-Ramgarh Cant, PS- Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand 2. Anil Kumar Thakur, aged about 27 years, S/o Sri Bhuneshwar Thakur, R/o village- Ramgarh, PO-Ramgarh, PS- Ramgarh, District Jharkhand Ramgarh 3. Sanjay Prasad, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Pancham Mahto, R/o village- Mukhbandha, PO-Barki Pona, PS- Chitarpur, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand 4. Priya Kumari, aged about 33 years, W/o Sri Jaleshwar Mahto, R/o village-Kunderwakla, PO-Ramgarh, PS- Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand 5. Bisheshwar Mahto, aged about 37 years, S/o Sri Jagdam 2025:JHHC:35149 3 Mahto, R/o village-Murubanda, PO-Barkipona, PS- Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand 6. Anil Kumar, aged about 27 years, S/o Sri Ramu Mahto, R/o village- Murubanda, PO- Barkipona, PS- Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand 7. Santosh Kumar Sharma, aged about 30 years, S/o Sri Lala Sharma, R/o village Hehal, PO-Chaingadha, PS- Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand 8. Bablu Mahto, aged about 21 years, S/o Sri Chedi Mahto, R/o village- Teliyatu, PO- Barkakana, PS-Ramgarh, District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand 9. Umesh Kumar Thakur, aged about 28 years, S/o Sri Raghunandan Thakur, R/o village- Saudagar Muhalla, PO- Ramgarh, PS- Ramgarh, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand 10. Munni Kumari, aged about 23 years, S/o Sri Biharilal Mahto, R/o village- Tomar, PO- Gola, PS-Gola, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand ……..Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Head Quarter, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; 3. Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh, P.O: Ramgarh, P.S: Ramgarh, Dist: Ramgarh, Jharkhand: 4. Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guard, Ramgarh, PO- Ramgarh, PS- Ramgarh, Dist-Ramgarh, Jharkhand 5. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, GPO,PS.- Sadar, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand …….. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---- For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate [W.P(S) No. 6391 of 2019] Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate [W.P(S) No. 468 of 2020] For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II --- C.A.V. ON 02.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON 25/11 /2025 Since both these writ petitions are dealing with common advertisement, as such, with consent of the parties; both were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For brevity, the prayers made in the respective petitions are mentioned herein below: W.P.(S) No. 6391 of 2019 2025:JHHC:35149 4 For a direction upon the respondents concerned to reconsider the selection/nomination process of Home Guards in connection with Advertisement No.01/2018 with respect to Block Dulmi, Chitarpur and Gola within the District of Ramgarh, issued by the respondents, wherein the present petitioners have completed the Physical and Written Examination successfully but the respondents have selected those candidates, who secured less marks than the present petitioners. W.P.(S) No. 468 of 2020 (a)For quashing the result as well as revised result, (Annexure-8), published by reconducting test in 2019, in contravention of the earlier conducted test which has been cancelled by the respondent on non-est ground. (b) For a direction upon the Respondents to declare/ publish the result in advertisement No. 01/2018 which was issued for selection of Technical and Non- Technical post in Jharkhand Home Guards in the district of Ramgarh on the basis of test conducted in the year 2018. (c) For a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to stay to the verification process (Annexure-9) during the pendency of the instant writ application; 3. Briefly stated, vide Advertisement No. 01/2018 the Respondent-State invited the applications from the eligible candidates for selection of Home Guards to fill up the vacancies in different districts. Thereafter, the petitioners were called upon for physical and written test by the Respondents on different dates as per schedule in 2018. Thereafter, the Respondents issued a fresh press communiqué to conduct the test again from 13.09.2019 to 24.09.2019 which was successfully conducted. As per the Petitioners, a final merit list was prepared and those candidates, who secured less marks in comparison to the petitioners were declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioners filed several representations in this regard but 2025:JHHC:35149 5 they were of no avail. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present writ applications. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6391 of 2019 had submitted that the final merit list consists of several candidates who have scored less than the petitioners and have been declared successful. He, further draws attention of this Court towards the fact that the total number of applicants in Gola Block was 1037 but the respondents have illegally selected the candidates up to roll no. 1039 which is an irregularity apparent on face of the record and prays that the writ application may be allowed. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 468 of 2020 had submitted that the whole process of re- conducting the examination after cancelling the exam earlier conducted after more than one year without any reason itself shows the malicious conduct on part of the Respondent-Authorities. He had further submitted that the cancellation of the earlier conducted examination without any reason is not justifiable in the eyes of law. 6. Per contra learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the petitioners have not annexed any document to show that the candidates securing lesser marks have been appointed. It had been further submitted that in Gola Block there were 1040 applicants instead of 1037 as alleged by the petitioners. 2025:JHHC:35149 6 Learned Counsel further draws attention of this Court towards the fact that due to detection of gross irregularities in physical and written test conducted by the selection committee between 14.05.2018 to 22.05.2018, the same was cancelled. Thereafter, the selection committee conducted fresh examination amongst the candidates who applied under the same advertisement without varying any conditions and no fresh candidates were entertained; as such, the writ petitions have no merit and are liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the main grievance of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6391 of 2019 is that candidates securing lesser marks have been appointed. The contention of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 468 of 2020 is that the whole process of re- examination after cancelling the exam earlier conducted without any reason, is not justified. 8. With regard to the contention in former set of petitioners, not a single chit of paper has been brought on record to show that the candidates securing lesser marks than that of petitioners have been appointed. It further appears that the respondent authorities vide letter dated 28.01.2020 communicated to the petitioners the marks obtained by them and the reason of denial for their selection. 2025:JHHC:35149 7 From bare perusal of the letter, it clearly transpires that the cut off marks for selection in Dulmi Block of the male candidate was 27 and that of female was 32 and in Chitarpur Block was 24 & 22 marks respectively. Further, in case if same marks were obtained by two or more candidates, the priority was given to the candidate older in age. A tabular form of marks obtained by the petitioners and cut-off marks for selection has been given in the counter affidavit dated 13.09.2022 in W.P.S. No. 6391 of 2019 and for brevity, the same is extracted herein below: Pet. No. Name of the petitioner Marks secured Cut off marks Cause of denial of final selection 1. Upendra Kumar Das 23 27 Marks obtained is less than the cut off marks 2. Jitendra Kumar Das 25 27 -do- 3. Arti Kumari 22 32 -do- 21. Ranjit Kumar Sao 22 24 -do- 4. Pankaj Kumar 26 27 -do- 19. Arjun Kumar 25 27 -do- 22. Sulekha Kumari 21 22 -do- 20. Sunil Kumar Mahto 27 27 Petitioner is younger than the selected candidate 5. Bhari Kumari 32 32 -do- 13. Muni Devi 32 32 -do- 10. Duleshwari Kumari 32 32 -do- 11. Priyanka Kumari 32 32 -do- 9. Sonika Kumari 32 32 -do- 6. Rani Kumari 32 32 -do- 9. From the above table, it becomes ample clear that none of the petitioners has obtained more marks than the cut-off marks for selection and Sunil Kumar Mahto who 2025:JHHC:35149 8 obtained the cut-off marks but he was not selected because the last selected candidate who also obtained the same marks was older than him. As such, the challenge of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6391 of 2019 has no legs to stand and is devoid of merit. 10. Now coming to the contention of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 468 of 2020 it appears that when certain irregularities were detected by the Selection Board, the District Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh convened a meeting on 19.08.2019 wherein it was decided to cancel the physical and written test conducted in 2018 and to re-conduct the tests from candidates who have already applied under advertisement no. 1/2018 and no new applications shall be entertained. It further transpires that equal opportunity has been given to all the candidates including the petitioners who appeared in the fresh examination. However, the petitioners could not be selected because of the reasons given in the Counter Affidavit dated 28.08.2020 and for brevity, a tabular form of reasons is given herein below: Sl. No. Petitioner’s Name Reason for non-selection i. Petitioner No.1, Nirmal Kumar Ravi Failed in physical test ii. Petitioner No.2, Anil Kumar Thakur Secured 25 marks with date of birth 23.04.1992 whereas the last candidate selected under his category has secured 25 marks with date of birth 06.02.1984. The candidate older in age has been given preference 2025:JHHC:35149 9 as per Note 12 of the Jharkhand Home Guards (Volunteer) Rules, 2014 iii. Petitioner No. 3, Sanjay Prasad Failed in physical test. iv. Petitioner No.4, Priya Kumari Failed in physical test. v. Petitioner No.5, Bisheshwar Mahto Failed in physical test. vi. Petitioner No.6, Anil Kumar Failed in physical test. vii. Petitioner No.7, Santosh Kumar Sharma Secured 25 marks with date of birth 19.01.1989 whereas the last candidate selected under his category has secured 25 marks with date of birth 06.02.1984. The candidate older in age has been given preference as per Note 12 of the Jharkhand Home Guards (Volunteer) Rules, 2014 viii. Petitioner No.8, Bablu Mahto Secured 22 marks whereas the cut off marks fixed under his category is 25 ix. Petitioner No.9, Umesh Kumar Thakur Secured 25 marks with date of birth 23.01.1991 whereas the last candidate selected under his category has secured 25 marks with date of birth 06.02.1984. The candidate older in age has been given preference as per Note 12 of the Jharkhand Home Guards (Volunteer) Rules, 2014 x. Petitioner No.10, Munni Kumari Not allowed to appear in the physical test due to pregnancy. 11. From bare perusal of the above table, it becomes crystal clear that none of the petitioners has obtained more marks than the cut-off marks in their respective categories, and petitioner nos. 1,3,4,5,6 have failed in their physical test and petitioner no. 2,7,9 are younger than the last selected candidate and petitioner no 10 was not allowed in the physical test due to pregnancy. 2025:JHHC:35149 10 Thus, the petitioners could not make out any case as to how they were specifically prejudiced due to re- examination as they have participated in the re-examination except petitioner no. 10 and equal opportunity was provided to them to compete and the reasons for their non-selection are crystal clear. As such, the challenge of the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 468 of 2020 has no legs to stand and is devoid of merit. 12. Having regard to the above discussion, no relief can be granted to these petitioners; accordingly, both these application stands dismissed. 13. Pending I.A(s)., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Jk N.A.F.R Uploaded on 25/11/2025