2025:JHHC:22813 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.3259 of 2025 ------ Rohit Kumar, son of Shri Aghnu Kumhar, R/o Village Sonariatand, P.O. Singhdaha, P.S. Topchanchi, District Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. The Deputy Secretary-cum-Public Information Officer, Jharkhand Academic Council, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate Ms. Neetu Verma, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sushant Kumar, AC to SC-II Ms. Suman Roy, AC to Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate ------ 05/ 08.08.2025 Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. 3. The Advertisement was published in the year 2011 and the entire process of recruitment came to an end much before 2019. 4. The petitioner claims that since there was error in awarding marks to the petitioner, he was not considered and now 2025:JHHC:22813 2 after correction, the petitioner has obtained 199 marks, which makes him eligible to be appointed. It is also the case of the petitioner that there are vacant posts, against which he can be adjusted. 5. The fact remains, which is not controverted that the appointment process started sometime in the year 2011, the result was declared in the year 2016 and much before 2019, the appointment process came to an end. Merely because some posts were not filled, will not give right to the petitioner to seek appointment. Further, after nearly nine years, the respondents cannot be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant. Cp-2