IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2619 of 2015 ----- Pramod Prasad, S/o Kouleshwar Prasad, R/o village Jhurjhuri, PS Barkatha, PO- Jhurjhuri, District Hazaribagh … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, situated at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, Ranchi, PO-Namkum, PS- Namkum, District-Ranchi. 2. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of HRD, Ranchi at Project Building, PO- Dhurwa, PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Govt. of Jharkhand at Project Building, PO+PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand … Respondent(s). CORAM :SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Sr.Advocate; Ms. Pratayksha Bhaskar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashish Kr. Shekhar, AC to SC (L & C)-II For the JAC : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate; Mrs. Pinky Shaw, Advocate ...... 29 /28.01.2025: 1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Academic Council. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s): “For issuance of appropriate writ/order(s)/director(s) calling upon the respondent for selection of the petitioner to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher on the basis of the score of the petitioner which is 164 in the Backward Class category. Further be pleased to direct the respondent to keep a post for the petitioner in the forthcoming counseling commencing from 22.6.2015, for the said post as the petitioner is not called upon for the counseling on the said date although he has higher score from the candidate whose name finds place in the final selection list with a score of 160 in the Backward Category.” 3. Admittedly, no one who has been appointed has obtained lesser marks than the petitioner. The person who has been appointed has got equal marks which the petitioner has obtained. As per rule 5(3) of the Jharkhand Rajkiyakrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Seva Sart Niyamawali), 2004 if two persons get equal marks then the person who is senior in age will be considered senior in the merit list. Admittedly, the last candidate who has been appointed is senior in age to the petitioner as he was born in the year 1984 and the petitioner was born in the year 1987. No candidate who is junior in age to the petitioner, has been appointed. 4. Considering the aforesaid admitted facts, I find that no illegality has been committed in not appointing the petitioner. 5. There is no merit in the writ petition, hence, the same stands dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) KNR