Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9975 (JHR)

KULDEEP KUMAR KESHARI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

WPC/1653/2018 · 2025-01-08

Sri Ananda Sen

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1653 of 2018 ------ Kuldeep Kumar Keshari, son of Jay Kumar Keshari, resident of Jamui Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Jamui, District Jamui (Bihar). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 3. The District Sessions Judge, Civil Court, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 4. The Registrar, Civil Court, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J ------ For the Petitioner(s) : None present. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rishi Pallava, Advocate ------ 08/ 08.01.2025 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. I have gone through the writ petition and heard the learned counsel representing the respondent No.2 – Registrar General, Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to give status and position of the petitioner in the select list in respect of the interview held on 26.08.2016 pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2014 dated 22.01.2014 for the Civil Court of Hazaribagh. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has appeared in the interview pursuant to the said Advertisement but the process has not culminated as yet. Thus, he filed this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.2 submits that the Advertisement was issued on 22.01.2014 being Advertisement No.01/2014 and the petitioner participated in the 2 interview but thereafter the process was stayed by this Court and was decided to cancel the said appointment process. It was decided to initiate a fresh appointment process by floating fresh Advertisement. 6. Considering the said submission of learned counsel representing the respondent No.2, since the process of appointment pursuant to Advertisement No.01/2014 was terminated, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Prashant.Cp-2