2025:JHHC:36108 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.6893 of 2025 ------ Shekhar Kumar, son of Ram Gulab Sahu, resident of 290, Opposite Sarla Birla Public School, Sanatorium, P.O. & P.S. Tatisilway, District Ranchi-834004. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, Kalinagar, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. 3. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Kalinagar, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pinky Tiwari, AC to AG Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate ------ 02/ 02.12.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents, at length. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the eligibility clause of Advertisement No.12/2023, which was published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), to fill up on amongst others the post of “dhViky ,oa led{k in] m|ksx foHkkx] lewg&x vjktif=r” (Entomologist and equivalent post, Industry Department, Group-D, Non-Gazetted). 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner possesses a 3-years Diploma course in 2025:JHHC:36108 2 Handloom & Textile Technology, which is a higher qualification than what has been sought for i.e. Matriculation and 1-year certificate course in (Sericulture/Silk Weaving/Silk Dyeing- Printing) exclusively from Jharkhand Silk Technical Development Institute, Chaibasa or 2-year (10 + 2) Inter Vocational Course (Sericulture/Textiles), but he has an apprehension that the respondent-JSSC will not consider his application, since he does not have a 2-year (10 + 2) Inter Vocational Course in Sericulture/Textiles. 4. The Advertisement No.12/2023 was published to fill up several posts including that of “dhViky ,oa led{k in] m|ksx foHkkx] lewg&x vjktif=r ” (Entomologist and equivalent post, Industry Department, Group-D, Non-Gazetted). The minimum qualification has been prescribed which reads as follows:- “vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vk;ksx esa vkosnu izkIr gksus dh vafre frfFk rd ekU;rk izkIr 'kS{kf.kd laLFkku ls U;wure eSafVªd @ 10oh d{kk ,oa >kj[k.M js'ke rduhdh fodkl laLFkku] pkbZcklk ls 01 o"khZ; lfVZfQdsV dkslZ bu (lsfjdYpj @ flYd fofHkax @ flYd MkbZx& fizfVax) mrh.kZ vFkok nks o’khZ; (10+2) bUVj O;olkf;d dkslZ (lsfjdYpj@ VsDlVkbYl) mrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA “ If translated in English, the same may be read as follows:- “Candidates must have passed minimum Matriculation / 10th Class from a recognized educational institution and one-year Certificate Course in Sericulture/Silk Weaving/ Silk Dyeing - Printing from the Jharkhand Silk Technical Development Institute, Chaibasa, or a two-year (10+2) Inter Vocational Course in 2025:JHHC:36108 3 (Sericulture/Textiles) by the last date of receipt of application in the Commission”. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Matriculate. It is also admitted that he does not possess the certificate from Jharkhand Silk Technical Development Institute, Chaibasa, rather, he is having a 3-years Diploma course in Handloom & Textile Technology. This three years Diploma course was not the qualification, which the respondents are seeking for. The qualification, which they are seeking is 1-year certificate course in (Sericulture/Silk Weaving/Silk Dyeing-Printing) exclusively from Jharkhand Silk Technical Development Institute, Chaibasa, or 2-year (10 + 2) Inter Vocational Course (Sericulture/Textiles). This is an essential prerequisite. The petitioner wants that though he does not possess the same qualification as demanded in the Advertisement, yet he should be considered. 6. When the respondent has published an Advertisement to fill up some posts, it is absolutely the prerogative of the respondent to choose the minimum qualification, as per their requirement. A candidate cannot dictate the minimum qualification criteria fixed by the employer. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242 (para-37), has held as follows:- “37. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled 2025:JHHC:36108 4 legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open to the court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration.” 8. Further, a Full Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.64 of 2020 (Dr. Nutan Indwar @ Nutan Indwar Vs. The State of Jharkhand) and other Analogues cases, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar 3189, has observed that the Recruiting Authority is the Best Judge as to what is its requirement and it is such understanding of the Recruiting Authority that would matter. 9. In this case, admittedly the petitioner does not meet the qualification criteria, nor the minimum qualification so prescribed in the Advertisement is arbitrary nor there is any malice in such prescription, nor also it is against any Rule or Law. Thus, this Court cannot interfere with the same. 2025:JHHC:36108 5 10. Considering what has been discussed above, I find that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, as he cannot dictate the terms and conditions of the qualification, which the respondent-JSSC has prescribed. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 02nd December, 2025 Prashant. Cp-2 AFR Uploaded on 06.12.2025