2025:JHHC:10605 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.536 of 2024 ------ Sujata Kumari Sharma, W/o Ashish Sharma, R/o Flat No.304, Raj Enclave, Near Piska More, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Principal Secretary, Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, Chai Bagan, Kali Nagar, Namkum, District Ranchi. 3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Chai Bagan, Kali Nagar, Namkum, District Ranchi. 4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Chai Bagan, Kali Nagar, Namkum, District Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Saumya Pandey, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate ------ 04/ 04.04.2025 The defects stand ignored. 2. It has been fairly submitted by learned counsel representing the petitioner that this issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2025 in L.P.A. No.143 of 2024 (Nirmal Pahan & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), and other analogues cases. 3. The petitioner did not appear on the date of verification of the records on the ground that she did not receive any intimation. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the dates were already notified in the website. A similar issue fell for consideration in batch of cases in L.P.A. No.143 of 2024, and other analogues cases. The Hon’ble Division Bench in para-35 & 36 of the said judgment dated 2025:JHHC:10605 2 28.02.2025, has held as hereunder:- “35. Admittedly, Clause 16(4)(ग)(viii) of the advertisement specifically provided for furnishing of information regarding the examination only -19 of 19- L.P.A. No. 143 of 2024 & analogous cases through the website of the Commission. The appellants were fully aware of the same and they are also bound by the same. They cannot seek any relaxation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and cannot find fault with the Commission for adhering to the said norms. When opportunity for document verification was given at least three times to each of the appellants as pointed out by the learned Single Judge, and it was not availed by them because of their own negligence in not checking the website of the Commission from time to time, they are not entitled to any relief on the basis of sympathy. 36. Merely because some of the other successful candidates were informed about the dates of document verification through an advertisement or otherwise through email, parity cannot be sought as righty held by the learned Single Judge. Only a person who has enforceable right can claim parity with similarly situated persons but not otherwise.” 5. The Division Bench while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, set aside the plea of the petitioners claiming personal communication and proper communication. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that this case is squarely covered with the judgment of Division Bench, passed in the case of Nirmal Pahan (supra). 7. Accordingly, this writ petition also stands dismissed in terms of judgment dated 28.02.2025 in L.P.A. No.143 of 2024. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant.Cp-2