2026:JHHC:15323 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4597 of 2025 ….….. 1. Akanksha Kumari, aged about 27 years, D/O Anand Raj, Resident of Village: Nawadih, P.O. Behradih, P.S. Domchanch and District Koderma. 2. Arti Verma, aged about 37 years, W/O Sudhir Kumar Swarnkar, Resident of Village: Bastacolla (Sonar Basti), P.O: Dhansar, P.S: Jhariya and District: Dhanbad. 3. Khushbu Kumari, aged about 37 years, W/O Jai Prakash Nirala, Resident of Village: 44, Degwa Tola, Lari, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O: Lari Kalan, P.S: Rajrappa and District: Ramgarh. 4. Deepika Deep, aged about 32 years D/O Deonarayan Ram, Resident of Village: Dari, P.O: Dari, P.S: Giddi(A) and District: Hazaribagh. 5. Kanchan Kumari, aged about 37 years, W/O Krishna Murari Turi, Resident of Village: Mendhochaprkho, P.O: Lataki, P.S: Jamua and District: Giridih. 6. Tanu Priya, aged about 27 years, D/O Shankar Mahto, Resident of Village: Datma More Kuju, P.O: Kuju, P.S: Mandu and District: Ramgarh. 7. Laxmi Kumari, aged about26 years, D/O Arun Kumar Mehta, Resident of Village: Kadwa, P.O: Kewal, P.S: Barhi and District: Hazaribagh. 8. Pallawi Kumari, aged about 27 years, D/O Ranvijay Prasad Mehta, Resident of Village: Gunja, P.O: Ichak, P.S: Ichak and District: Hazaribagh. 9. Sitara Kumari, aged about 26 years, D/O Koushal Kumar Mehta, Resident of Village: Gunja, P.O: Ichak, P.S: Ichak and District: Hazaribagh. 10. Sangita Kumari, aged about 33 years, D/O Sudarshan Ram, Resident of Village: Satahe, P.O: Patan, P.S: Patan and District: Palamu. 11. Anamika Kumari, aged about 29 years, D/O Rajendra Nayak, Resident of Village: Tandwa, P.O: Tandwa, P.S: Tandwa and District: Chatra. 12. Pushpa Kumari, aged about 43 years, W/O Ajit Kumar Choudhary, Resident of Village: Kadma Market 2026:JHHC:15323 2 Farm Area, P.O: Jamshedpur, P.S: Kadma and District: East Singhbhum. 13. Bhawna Supriya, aged about27 years, D/O Yadu Nath Mahto, Resident of Village: Khalari, P.O: Ajaigarh, P.S: Silli and District: Ranchi. 14. Anuja Lakra, aged about 29 years, D/O Parmeshwar Bhagat, Resident of Village: Dunduria Lohardaga Road, P.O: Gumla, P.S: Gumla and District: Gumla. 15. Sunita Kumari, aged about 36 years, D/O Maneshwar Baraik, Resident of Village: Ghaghra, P.O: Ghaghra, P.S: Ghaghra and District: Gumla. 16. Manisha Kumari, aged about 28 years, W/O Rajkiran Jaiswal, Resident of Village: Mahagama, P.O: Mahagama, P.S: Mahagama and District: Godda. 17. Krity Agrawal, aged about 29 years, D/O Sheo Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Village: Dibha Mohalla, P.O: Chatra, P.S: Chatra and District: Chatra. 18. Bindu Kumari Ray, aged about 30 years, W/O Bhagirath Kumar Ray, Resident of Village: Dakai, P.O: Manigarhi, P.S: Sarwan Dakai and District: Deoghar. 19. Rekha Devi, aged about 36 years, W/O Sukhdev Prasad, Resident of Village: Chedra, P.O: Bishnugarh, P.S: Bishnugarh and District: Hazaribagh. 20. Sadhna Kumari, aged about 28 years, W/O Rajiv Ranjan, Resident of Village: Kumhari, P.O: Narchahi, P.S: Mayurhand, and District: Chatra. 21. Menka Kumari, aged about 31 years, C/O Chandan Choudhari, Resident of Village: Jabra, P.O: Jabra, P.S: Simariya and District: Chatra. 22.Anima Ebha Minj, aged about 35 years, D/O Joachim Minj, Resident of Village: Q.No. DS-1-146-A Railway Colony, P.O: B.S.City-10 Radhanagar, P.S: Balidih and District: Bokaro. 23. Bulli Rani Marandi, aged about 33 years, W/O Sandeep Hembrom, Resident of Village: Panibaswa, P.O: Machhali, P.S: Bhelwaghati Deori and District: Giridih. 24. Sudha Kumari, aged about 28 years, D/O Wakil Prasad Mehta, Resident of Village: Churchu, P.O: Sindur, P.S: Korra and District: Hazaribagh. 2026:JHHC:15323 3 25. Anita Kumari, aged about 30 years, D/O Dhananjay Pramanik, Resident of Village: Tata Sijua 12 No Basti Kapuria, P.O: Bhelatand, P.S: Jogta and District: Dhanbad. 26. Neha Kumari, aged about 27 years, D/O Suphal Ram Rajwar, Resident of Village: Tand Balidih, P.O: Jainamore, P.S: Jaridih and District: Bokaro. 27. Anuja Kumari, aged about 25 years, D/O Sunil Kumar Dubey, Resident of Village: Salhana, P.O: Kutmu, P.S: Pandu and District: Palamu. 28. Puja Kumari, aged about 27 years D/O Sunil Kumar Dubey, Resident of Village: Salhana, P.O: Kutmu, P.S: Pandu and District: Palamu. 29. Bandana Kumari, aged about 44 years, W/O Vijay Kumar, Resident of Village: Ward 1 Rakhwan, P.O: Jamtara, P.S: Jamtara, and District: Jamtara. 30. Ranjeeta Kumari, aged about 40 years, W/O Ranjeet Kumar Vimal, Resident of Village: Jogidih, P.O: Nandudih, P.S: Satgawan and District: Koderma. 31. Nushrat Bano, aged about 41 years, Wife of Md. Rahbar Alam, Resident of Kurmitand, Brahmandiha, P.O., P.S. Dhanbad & District Dhanbad. 32. Shazada Parween, aged about 34 years, Daughter of Shamsuddin Ansari, Resident of Singhdih, P.O. Gomo, P.S. Gomo & District Dhanbad. 33. Raginee Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of Kunj Bihari Mishra, Resident of Village Majhigawan, P.O., P.S. Manjhigawan & District Jamshedpur. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having it office at Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S. Morabadi & District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 2026:JHHC:15323 4 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) with W.P.(S) No. 5736 of 2025 ….….. Sindhu Kumari, aged about 34 years, Daughter of Damoder Pandey, Resident of Village Sundipur, P.O. Sundipur, Kandi & District Garhwa. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jnarkhand through Chief Secretary, having it office at Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S. Morabadi & District-Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District — Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) with W.P.(S) No. 5252 of 2025 ….….. 1. Vibha Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of Jagdish Yadav, Resident of Village Karso, P.O., P.S. Barhi & District Hazaribagh. 2026:JHHC:15323 5 2. Anupa Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of Rajdev Yadav, Resident of Village Mahuwagarah, P.O. Makatpur, P.S. Jainagar & District Koderma. 3. Purnima Kumari, aged about 41 years, Daughter of Prasad Mahto, Resident of Jai Prabha Nager, Barkahaon Road, P.O., P.S. Sadar & District Hazaribagh. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having it office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) with W.P.(S) No. 4703 of 2025 ….….. 1. Anju Kumari, aged about 39 years, W/o Hari Shankar Kumar, R/o 377 Vidyapuri, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya and District Koderma. 2. Sushila Kumari, aged about 41 years, D/o Suresh Lal Barnwal, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Near Cooperative Colony, NH 33, P.Ο. Hazaribagh, P.S. Bishnugarh and District - Hazaribagh. 3. Madhuri Kumari, aged about 34 years, W/o Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, R/o Village Rajogari, P.O. Lesligang, P.S. Lesligang and District Palamau. 2026:JHHC:15323 6 4. Shobha Kumari, aged about 35 years, D/o Radha Kant Mehra, R/o Village Lougain, P.O. Lougain, P.S. Pathargama and District Godda. 5. Shweta Soren, aged about 31 years, D/o Mehilal Manjhi, R/o Village Chainpur, P.O. Chainpur, P.S. Charhi and District Hazaribagh. 6. Suchita Kumari, aged about 38 years, W/o Arvind Ram, R/o Village Resuaa, P.O., P.S. Manjhiaon and District Garhwa. 7. Sarita Murmu, aged about 33 years, W/o Binod Hembrom, R/o Village Gangta Govindpur, P.O. Motia, P.S. Godda & District -Godda. 8. Biva Kumari, aged about 42 years, D/o Devendra Nath Jha, R/o Dev kunj, Mohalla Saket Puri, P.O., P.S. & District Godda. 9. Ravina Rani, aged about 40 years, D/o Jay Narayan Sah, R/o Namaste Road, Borio Bazar, P.O., P.S. Borio and District Sahebganj. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having it office at Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S. Morabadi & District Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) with W.P.(S) No. 6193 of 2025 ….….. 2026:JHHC:15323 7 1. Arti Pandey, aged about 35 years, Daughter of Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Resident of Village Asanbani, P.O. Asanbani, P.S. Ranishwan, District - Dumka, Jharkhand -816118. 2. Punita, aged about 47 years, Daughter of Ram Krishna Prasad, Wife of Amit Kumar Sinha, Resident of at Hari Om General Store Near Vandana Nurshing Home, Tower Colony, Main Road, Shivpuri, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S. -Hazaribag, District - Hazaribag, Jharkhand - 825402. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi. 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi. 3. Secretary, Department of Women Child Development & Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi. 4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, Ranchi. 5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) with W.P.(S) No. 4667 of 2025 ….….. 1. Rupa Kumari, aged about 35 years, Wife of Rahul Kumar, Resident of at 710, Bhuchungdih Road, Jainamore, Bandhdih, P.O.-Bandhdih, P.S. Jaridih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand - 829301. 2. Monika Kumari, aged about 33 years, Daughter of Rajendra Singh, Resident of Tara Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District -Bokaro, Jharkhand - 827013. 2026:JHHC:15323 8 3. Gitanjali Verma, aged about 32 years, Daughter of Dilip Verma, Resident of Opposite Galaxia Mall, Kali Mandir Gali, Sukhdeo Nagar, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand - 834005. 4. Sangita Rani Gupta, aged about 41 years, Wife of Manoj Kumar Gupta, Daughter of Ashok Kumar Sahu, Resident of Makatpur P.O.-Makatpur, P.S.-Giridih, Jharkhand-815301. 5. Deepa Kumari, aged about 31 years, Daughter of Bhola Mahato, Resident of Village - Parasia, P.O. Kusunda, P.S. -Putki, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand- 828116. 6. Pinky Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of Dinesh Mahto, Resident of Village Nutandih, P.O. Tupkadih P.S. - Jaridih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand- 827010. 7 Swati Kumari, aged about 24 years, Daughter of Kuleshwar Saw, Resident of Village Banji, Barughutu, Uttari, Banji, P.O.- Banji, P.S. Mandu, District - Ramgarh, Jharkhand 825314. 8. Aparna Singh, aged about 45 years, Wife of Siteshwar Singh, Resident of Village - Surju Gadi, P.O. Gadi Nawdiha, P.S. Jamua, District - Giridih, Jharkhand-815312. 9. Amirun Nisha, aged about 33 years, Wife of Md. Anwarul Ansari, Resident of Village Jamni Paharpur, P.O. Jamni Paharpur, P.S.-Godda, District-Godda, Jharkhand-814133. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi. 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Ranchi. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, 3. Secretary, Department of Women Child Development & Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having office at P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Project Building, Dhurwa, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi. 2026:JHHC:15323 9 4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi. 5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) With W.P.(S) No. 7248 of 2025 ….….. 1. Deepmala, aged about 30 years, Daughter of Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Resident of Village-Tarabad, P.O.+P.S. Rikhiya, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its office at Karamtoli, Morahbadi, P.O. & P.S. Morahbadi, District-Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi At: Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, CHaibagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District-Ranchi. 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, CHaibagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District- Ranchi. 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman having its office at Kali Nagar, Chaibagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District-Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) with W.P.(S) No. 5622 of 2025 ….….. 1. Sana Fatma, Aged About 32 Years, D/O: Mohammad Arman, R/O: Arman Manzil, Dangal Para, Dumka, P.O+P.S- Dumka, District: Dumka, Jharkhand-814101. 2026:JHHC:15323 10 2. Nisha Kumari, Aged about 29 years, D/O: Sunil Kumar, R/O: Tungaon, P.O- Jurdag, P.S- Karra Jurdag, District: Khunti, Jharkhand-835210 3. Pushpa Kumari, Aged about 25 years, D/O: Prem Mahatha, R/O: Kamaldih, P.O- Narayanpur, P.S- Narayanpur, District Bokaro, Jharkhand-827013 4. Sonam Kumari, Aged about 35 years, D/O: Rajendra Prasad Saw, R/O: Panchayat Kharagdiha Block Jamua, village-Kharagdiha post Kharagdiha, P.O- Kharagdiha, P.S- Jamua Khariodih, District: Deori Giridih, Jharkhand-815314 …. Petitioners VERSUS The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Having Office At Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.& P.S.- Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2) The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. Of Jharkhand, Having Its Office At Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O- Dhurwa, P.S Jagarnnathpur, District- Ranchi. 3) The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Having Its Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & Dhurwa, District Jharkhand. Ranchi, 4) The Secretary, Jharkhand staff Selection Commission, Having its Office at Kalinagar Chaibagan, P.O& P.S Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5) Controller of examination, Jharkhand staff selection commission, having its office at kalinagar chaibagan, P.O & P.S- Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) W.P.(S) No. 5290 of 2025 ….….. 1. Laxmi Kumari, aged about 30 years, D/o Raju Mahto, R/o House No 32 U, Panderpala Mahto Tola, Bishunpur, P.O. B.Polytechnic, P.S. Bank More & District- Dhanbad. 2026:JHHC:15323 11 2. Sahin Khatun, aged about 27 years, D/o Md Sarfraj Khan, R/o Village Barkatha, P.O., P.S. Barkatha & District-Hazaribagh. 3. Manila Kujur, aged about 29 years, D/o Sukra Oraon, R/o Khuti Toli, Sons, P.O. Mandar, P.S. Chanho & District-Ranchi. 4. Soumya Kumari, aged about 28 years, D/o Satyendra Prasad Yadav, R/o Village Ghagri, P.O. Birbal, P.S. Dhurki & District-Garhwa. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having it office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District-Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) with W.P.(S) No. 6515 of 2025 ….….. Rina Kumari, aged about 43 years, D/O Shambhu Nath Tiwari, Resident of Village: Chiyanki, P.O. Chiyanki, P.S. Medininagar, District Palamu, Jharkhand. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having it office at Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S. Morabadi & District Ranchi. 2026:JHHC:15323 12 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sr. Advocate Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, Advocate Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate Mr. Anuj Kr. Trivedi, Advocate Ms. Soniya Hansda, Advocate Mrs. Tanya Singh, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sonal Tiwary, A.C. to A.G. Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, A.C. to G.P.-II Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, A.C. to G.P.-II For the JSSC : M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Jay Prakash, Advocates Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate ….….. C.A.V. ON: 29/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions have approached this Court with common grievances, thus all matters have been taken up together with the consent of the parties. 3. The issue raised in these batch matters is that the petitioners had applied for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor in pursuance of Advertisement No. 14/2023 and they do possess the prescribed qualification 2026:JHHC:15323 13 as per the Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted Employees (Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2019) and the Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted Employees (Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, (Amendment) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2021) i.e. Graduation with any one of the three subjects i.e. Sociology or Psychology or Home Science from a recognized University. For brevity, the facts of W.P.(S) No. 4597 of 2025 is referred. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were duly permitted to participate in the recruitment process and appear at the competitive examination. The Petitioners were also declared as successful as per merit and thereafter they were called for documents verification but their candidature has been arbitrarily rejected on the ground of not studying the subject for all three years, even though such requirement was never mentioned either in the Recruitment Rules or even in the Advertisement. 5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel representing the respective petitioners in these batch of writ petitions has led the arguments. He has informed the Court that when the matter was first taken up 28.08.2026 an issue was raised by this Court as to whether the reservation of 100% of the posts only for women was a permissible constitutional exercise and thereafter the matter was referred to the Division Bench vide order dated 19.12.2025. Accordingly, the matters were placed before the Division Bench and vide order dated 19.03.2026 2026:JHHC:15323 14 which was pronounced on 24.03.2026, the Division Bench has held that the provision of reserving 100% posts of Supervisors for females is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and thereafter these petitions were returned to the learned Single Judge for a decision on the issues raised by the petitioners regarding their exclusion from consideration for the posts of Lady Supervisors. 6. Ld. Sr. Counsel has initially drawn attention of this Court towards the Rules, 2019 which lays down the procedure for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor. The relevant provision regarding eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor has been provided under Rule 9 (ka) which is as follows: मिहला पयªवेि±का - कु ल Öवीकृ त पद के 75% पद पर िनयुिĉ हेतु िकसी माÆयता ÿाĮ िवĵिवīालय से समाज शाľ या मनोिव²ान या गृह िव²ान या बाल िवकास िवषयŌ के साथ मिहला Öनातक; which means that the applicant has to possess Graduation degree with Sociology or Psychology or Home Science or child development subjects from a recognized University. Thereafter, the Rules of 2019 was amended vide notification dated 29.11.2021 whereby Rule 9 (ka) has been amended as: मिहला पयªवेि±का - कु ल Öवीकृ त पद के 75% पद पर िनयुिĉ हेतु िकसी माÆयता ÿाĮ िवĵिवīालय से समाज शाľ या मनोिव²ान या गृह िव²ान िवषयŌ के साथ मिहला Öनातक, which means that the applicant has to possess Graduation degree with Sociology or Psychology or Home Science from a recognized University. 7. Ld. Sr. Counsel further argued that an Advertisement No. 14/2023 was published by JSSC on 09.09.2023 for filling 444 posts of Lady Supervisor. Clause 5 of the said advertisement provides for eligibility 2026:JHHC:15323 15 criteria which is: “माÆयता ÿाĮ िवĵिवīालय से समाजशाľ या मनोिव²ान या गृह िव²ान म¤ Öनातक मिहला।”. Thus, neither in the Recruitment Rules; nor in the advertisement, it has been stipulated that the aforementioned subjects have to be studied in all the three years of graduation. 8. He further argued and has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure-3 (Series) of the writ petition and Annexure-S.A.-3 (Series) to the supplementary affidavit dated 19.08.2025 filed on behalf of the petitioners to demonstrate that all the petitioners are duly qualified as per the applicable rules i.e. Rules of 2019 and 2021 and have graduated with the subjects as per the Recruitment Rules. 9. Ld. Sr. Counsel while putting emphasis upon the Rules of 2019 (Annexure-1) and the amended Rules of 2021 (Annexure-1/1) argued that the relevant conditions as contained in Rule 9 or the amended Rule 9 never mentioned that a candidate has to be an ‘Honors Graduate’ or ‘three years Graduate’ in a particular subject/subjects; rather the requirement had been of ‘Graduation with the Sociology or Psychology or Home Science’ and there was no mention of the years of Graduation or Honors etc. It has been argued that all the petitioners are fulfilling the condition of being a Graduate with the above-named subjects and therefore the ground on which their candidature has been rejected is uncalled for, illegal and thoroughly arbitrary. 10. It has been further argued that the petitioners have all participated in the recruitment process and they have even qualified on merit in the competitive examination and were called for document verification vide Important Notice dated 27.05.2025 which is annexed as Annexure-5 2026:JHHC:15323 16 of the writ petition. After shortlisting the petitioners on the basis of merit, the respondent JSSC has raised objection to the educational qualification of the petitioners vide Annexure-6 (Series) to the writ petition and Annexure-S.A.-1 (Series) to the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that they have not studied in the subject in the Graduation for three years. 11. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that though in the impugned rejection orders the respondents have taken the above referred plea of not having studied in the relevant subject for three years but however in the counter affidavit and in the arguments of the respondents a new plea has been taken that the petitioners were required to have ‘Graduation in the relevant subject’ as per Clause 5 of the advertisement but the petitioners are not fulfilling that condition. 12. With respect to the grounds taken in the impugned notices containing objections with respect to qualification of the petitioners (Annexure-6 Series) to the writ petition and Annexure-S.A.-3 (Series) to the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that studying the subjects for 3 years was not conditioned and prescribed either in the Rules of 2019, or amended Rules of 2021 nor even in the advertisement and thus the respondent JSSC cannot justify the impugned objections and thereby non-consideration of the petitioners for appointment to the advertised posts is wrongful and illegal. 13. With respect to above referred new grounds as taken in the Counter Affidavit or in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents, while referring to the 2026:JHHC:15323 17 judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, Ld. Sr. Counsel has contended that the Counter Affidavit cannot improve upon what is contained in the impugned notices/orders which never contains such grounds which are now being taken through the Counter Affidavit or in the arguments of the respondents. 14. Mr. Kumar has further argued that in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents dated 15.09.2025 reliance has been placed on the Rules of 2019 (Annexure-1) and Amended Rules of 2021 (Annexure-1/1) and the respondents have knowingly not made any reference of the further amended Rules of the year 2023 which was otherwise also challenged on behalf of the petitioners as having not gazetted in the Official Gazette of Jharkhand. 15. Ld. Sr. Advocate has argued that the language and wordings of the applicable Rules i.e. 2019 Rules or Amended Rules of 2021 very much mentions that a candidate should be a women Graduate from any recognized University with Sociology or Psychology or Home Science but it nowhere mentions a candidate has to be Honors Graduate or must have studied in a subject for any number of years. On the basis of the said Rules of 2019 or 2021, he contended that in both the Rules, the word ‘with’ the subjects was mentioned but however the respondent JSSC while issuing the Advertisement No. 14/2023 used the word ‘in’ the subjects and thereby a different argument altogether is being advanced from the side of the respondents which cannot be accepted firstly because the applicable Rules never used such 2026:JHHC:15323 18 connotation or word i.e. ‘in’ the subjects and it was rather ‘with’ the subjects and Secondly, even if the respondents may attempt to get support from the alleged Rules of 2023, the same cannot be permitted because the said Rules of 2023 have been published in the Official Gazette only on 18.03.2026. 16. Mr. Kumar has also pointed out that the writ petitioners had in their rejoinder to their Counter Affidavit filed way back in October, 2025 very categorically pleaded about non-publication and non- gazette of the relevant Rules of 2023 and only thereafter very recently in the year 2026, the respondents have tried to cover up their fault and thus they cannot be allowed to take advantage of Rules published/gazetted in the year 2026 to justify the conditions mentioned in the Advertisement No. 14/2023. 17. Ld. Sr. Counsel reiterated that when the applicable rules used the words ‘with the subjects’, mere mention of the words ‘in the subjects’ in the advertisement will not make much difference and the candidature of the Petitioners cannot be rejected because the Rules shall prevail as per the law of the land. Even if the condition of qualification, having not mentioned the words like ‘Honours’ or ‘number of years of study in subject’ etc. is said to be ambiguous in view of the law laid down in Parvaiz Ahmed Parry vs State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in (2015) 17 SCC 709. Reliance has placed on para 15 of the said Judgement wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if there in any ambiguity or vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the advertisement, then it should be clarified in the advertisement itself and if it has not been clarified then 2026:JHHC:15323 19 the benefit should be given to the candidates. 18. Ld. Sr. Counsel strenuously argued that the Respondents may not be allowed to take any advantage from the amendment made in the Rules of 2023 because the same also never requires ‘Honours in any subject’ or ‘required number of years of study in any subject’, Moreover the said rules have been published in the official gazette only on 18.03.2026 and therefore as per the law of the land, the Rules of 2023 becomes effective only from its date of publication in the official gazette. Reliance have been placed on a recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Viraj Impex Private Limited vs Union of India & Anr reported in 2026 INSC 80 to support the legal point raised by the Senior Counsel. 19. Mr. Amritansh Vats, Mr. Chanchal Jain, Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj and Mrs. Tanya Singh learned Advocates who are appearing in the connected matters listed today along with this case have adopted the arguments advanced by the Ld. Sr. Counsel and have asserted that the Petitioners of their cases also stand on similar footing and all the Petitioners are Graduates with the required subject. 20. Per contra, while opposing the prayers made in the writ petitions, Mr. Sanjay Piparwal appearing for the respondent JSSC as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State have sought to justify the objections raised with respect to the petitioners in Annexure 6 (series) and likewise and have contended that the petitioners are required to have studied in the respective subject for three years. Upon court’s asking as to whether such stipulation can be deciphered from the 2026:JHHC:15323 20 provisions as contained in the applicable rules, they have contended that the provisions as contained in Rule 9 is no doubt plain in language but the intent is clear. 21. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have also sought to rely upon and referred to the Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted Employees (Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2023 to put emphasis that in the said Amended Rules of 2023, the eligibility criteria has been amended as “माÆयता ÿाĮ िवĵिवīालय से समाजशाľ या मनोिव²ान या गृह िव²ान म¤ Öनातक मिहला।”, which means that the applicant should possess Graduation degree in Sociology, Psychology or Home Science from a recognized institution and they must have studied in any of those subjects for three year. 22. It is the contention made on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioners had not studied the aforesaid subjects in all three years of graduation, their candidature has been rightly rejected. 23. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent JSSC has further relied on the judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 489 of 2023 (Gita Kumari & Ors. vs State of Jharkhand & Ors) to contend that similar qualification had been prescribed for appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher and the Division Bench has held that Graduation degree with the subject as an optional/subsidiary subject and not the main/core subject does not fulfil the educational qualification requirement. 24. In his rejoinder arguments, Mr. Ajit Kumar, has sought to distinguish the judgement of this Court in L.P.A. No. 489 of 2023 and has contended that in the said 2026:JHHC:15323 21 case as well as in other similar cases decided by this Court, different rules were in consideration before the Court and the appointments had to be made on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher or Teacher. In those set of cases, the writ petitioners were seeking appointment on the post of Language/Sanskrit teacher but had studied the Language subject as MIL/Modern Indian Language (compulsory) paper or Sanskrit as subsidiary paper. Mr. Kumar has further pointed out that the eligibility conditions in the Advertisements in question before this Court in those cases had been different and obviously the eligibility requirements for a specialized post like that of a teacher cannot be equated with the post of Lady Supervisor who are supposed to supervise the general administration and works of Anganwadi workers. It has also been re-emphasized by Mr. Kumar that the respondent JSSC or State cannot take benefit of the language used in the amended qualifications as mentioned in the Rules of 2023 which has been published for the first time in the Official Gazette of Jharkhand on 18.03.2026 during pendency of these cases particularly after objections had been raised with respect to the same. 25. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties at length, this Court finds that neither in the Rules of 2019 (Annexure-1), nor in the amended Rules of 2021 (Annexure-1/1); nor even in the Advertisement No. 14/2023 it is stipulated that the candidate must have Graduation with Honors or have studied in the concerned subjects for any number of years or three years, thus the impugned objections raised by the respondent JSSC as contained in Annexure-6 (Series) to the writ petition and 2026:JHHC:15323 22 Annexure-S.A.-1 (Series) to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners and likewise for other petitioners in other cases is not in accordance with law and applicable Rules. 26. 26. The respondents have sought to justify the impugned objections as raised by them for rejecting the qualifications of the petitioners or denying their candidature by way of taking fresh grounds in the Counter Affidavit but this Court is conscious about the principles laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 where the Hon’ble Apex Court had expressed its views in paragraph 8 as under: 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] : “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like wine becoming better as they grow older.” 24. Thus, when the Rules as well as the Advertisement had been silent with respect to ‘Honors in a subject’ or ‘number of years of study in a subject’, the objections raised by the respondents with respect to not accepting the Graduation degree of the petitioners on the ground that they have not studied the subject for three years does not appear to be tenable and valid. 25. Even the respondents have raised fresh pleas in 2026:JHHC:15323 23 the Counter Affidavit and have sought to rely upon the subsequently gazetted Rules of 2023 which has been published in the Official Gazette on 18.03.2026 for justifying the rejection of candidature of the petitioners for the post of Lady Supervisor; this Court has also examined the said grounds taken by the respondents if same can be held to be proper for rejecting the candidature and qualifications of the petitioners. 25. The respondents have relied upon the Amendment Rules, 2023, which, according to them, altered the eligibility criteria. The respondents have sought to take a plea that by way of amendments in Rule 9 of the Original Rules, the word “vishayon ke saath mahila snatak” was amended to “vishayon mein mahila snatak; thus the intention had been that the candidate must be having Graduation with Honors or have studied three years in the subject as mentioned in the eligibility conditions. This Court does not find any such stipulation in the Rules in which the word “Honors” or “three years study” are present. This Court also finds that though the said Amended Rules of 2023 were issued under Article 166 of the Constitution of India; the same were not published in the Official Gazette until 18.03.2026, i.e., after the issuance of the advertisement and much after commencement of the recruitment process. 26. The legal position with regard to enforceability of legislation is well settled. Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides for Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous publication. Section 23 (5) stipulates that the publication in the Official Gazette of a rule after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-law has been 2026:JHHC:15323 24 duly made. For ready reference, section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is being reproduced hereinbelow: 23. Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous publication. Where, by any 1 [Central Act] or Regulation, a power to make rules or bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the rules or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the following provisions shall apply, namely:— (1) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws shall, before making them, publish a draft of the proposed rules or bye-laws for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby; (2) the publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so requires, in such manner as the 5 [Government concerned] prescribes; (3) there shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration; (4) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws, and, where the rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction, approval or concurrence of another authority, that authority also, shall consider any objection or suggestion which may be received by the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the date so specified; (5) the publication in the [Official Gazette] of a rule or bye-law purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-law has been duly made. 27. Furthermore, section 28 of the Bihar & Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 also stipulates that when any rule is made under the Bihar & Orissa Act, it is directed that any order, notification or other matter shall be notified, or published be deemed to be duly made if it is published in the Official Gazette, meaning thereby; that a rule is deemed to be made only when it is published in the official gazette. For ready reference, section 28 of the Bihar & Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 is being reproduced hereinbelow: 28. Publication of orders and notifications in the Official Gazette.- Where in any Bihar and Orissa Act. [or Bihar Act] or in any rule made under any such Act, it is directed that any order, notification or other matter shall be notified, or published, such notification or publication shall, unless the Act otherwise provides, be deemed to be duly made if it is published in the [Official Gazette]. 28. This legal principle has on various occasions being discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgements including Harla vs State of Rajasthan reported in 1951 SCC 936 wherein the issue raised was 2026:JHHC:15323 25 whether the mere passing of a resolution without promulgation or publication in the gazette or other means to make the Act known to the public, was sufficient to make it a law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 9 has held that: “Natural justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some reasonable way so that all men may know what it is, or at the very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable diligence. The thought that a decision reached in a secret recesses chamber to which the public have no access and to which even their accredited representatives have no access and of which they can normally know nothing, can nevertheless affect their lives……...” Emphasis Supplied 24. Similarly, in the case of B.K. Srinivasan & Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in (1987) 1 SCC 658, the Hon’ble Apex Court has again at para 15 held that: “It is therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to make effect must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation. Whether the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the mode of publication such a mode of publication, may be sufficient if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or of it prescribes a plainly unrecognizable mode of publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognizable official channel, namely the Official Gazette……” 24. Again, in Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited vs Union of India & Ors. reported in (2014) 10 SCC 673 at Para 22 & 24 it has been held that: “22.It is also essential that what is claimed to be a law must be notified or made public in order to bind the citizen….. 24. So far as the mode of publication is concerned, such mode must be prescribed in the Statute. In the event, the statute does not contain any prescription and even under the subordinate legislation there is silence in the matter, the legislation will take affect only when it is published through customary official channel namely the official gazette.” Emphasis Supplied Further, in Viraj Impex Private Limited vs Union of India & Anr reported in 2026 INSC 80, the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 19 has held that: 2026:JHHC:15323 26 A Notification cannot operate in a fragmented manner. In law, it is born only upon publication in the Official Gazette, and it is from that date alone that rights may be curtailed or obligations imposed. To hold otherwise, would permit unpublished delegated legislation to burden citizens, a proposition expressly rejected by this Court in long line of decisions. Emphasis Supplied 31. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the law is well settled that a Rule can become operative only after publication in the official gazette. In the present case the Rules of 2023 which is being relied upon to justify the requirements as claimed by the respondents, had been published in the official gazette on 18.03.2026 after the recruitment process had been advanced; the petitioners were even called for document verification and upon denial of the candidature had approached this Court way back in the year 2025 and few results had also been published. Therefore, this Court is not ready to accept the contentions of the respondents particularly when the appointments are to be made on general supervisory posts in the Child and Welfare Department. The eligibility conditions as prescribed in the Rules of 2019 and even the Amended Rules of 2021 very clearly provided that a candidate should be a women having Graduation from a recognized University with Sociology or Psychology or Home Science and even if the word ‘with’ is treated to be changed as ‘main’ no much difference can be found or at least there is apparent ambiguity. 32. Havning regards to the aforesaid discussions, the contentions of the respondents are not acceptable to this Court for reasons firstly, that the applicable Rules i.e. Rules of 2019 and Amended Rules of 2021 clearly provided that a candidate has to be Graduate with any of the subjects and there was no mention of Graduation 2026:JHHC:15323 27 with Honors or study in a subject for a particular number of years and Secondly, that the Rules of 2023 got published in the Official Gazette only on 18.03.2026, thus word ‘main’ used in the advertisement cannot be held to be justified to treat the petitioners as disqualified. 33. This Court is also of the view that the judgement rendered by this Court in L.P.A. No. 489/2023, Gita Kumari & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand is clearly distinguishable because in the said judgement different set of Rules concerning the post of Teacher was under consideration and for appointment on the post of subject teachers of Language, other streams, Mathematics / Physics / Biology / Chemistry etc. different eligibility conditions were prescribed may be to have specialized teachers in the subjects. 34. Even if there had been ambiguity in the conditions, the petitioners will succeed in view of the law of the land and if this Court accepts the conditions brought in by the respondents by way of the recently published/gazetted Rules of 2023, this Court is reminded of the legal position that rules of games cannot be changed after the recruitment process has begun as has also been held in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High Court reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540. 35. Although, the respondents in the present case have argued that the Rules of 2023 were issued in the name of the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that in absence of publication in the Official Gazette at the relevant time, the said rules could not have been enforced against the petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a notification or rule becomes operative only upon its 2026:JHHC:15323 28 publication in the Official Gazette and cannot be given retrospective effect so as to prejudice the rights of candidates who have participated in an ongoing selection process. Consequently, the reliance placed by the respondents upon the Amendment Rules, 2023 to reject the candidature of the petitioners is wholly misconceived and legally unsustainable. 36. Accordingly, it is held that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Further, reliance of the respondents on the notification dated 29.03.2023 i.e. Amended Rules of 2023 which has been published in the official gazette on 18.03.2026; is also untenable in the eyes of law as because the said amendment rules not having been published in the official gazette before the initiation of recruitment process could not have been made applicable to the petitioners. 37. Even the action of the respondent JSSC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners at the stage of document verification when the petitioners had already participated and qualified on merit is impermissible as because the process of document verification is only for confirming the authenticity of the documents/credentials already submitted by the candidates and not to impose any additional qualification/criteria which was not part of the Recruitment Rules and the Advertisement. 38. Accordingly, for all the above reasons, I hold that the impugned rejection of the candidature of the petitioners are bad and are hereby quashed and set aside and the Respondent JSSC is directed to accept the 2026:JHHC:15323 29 candidature of the petitioners in accordance with the Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted Employees (Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2019 (Annexure-1) as amended in 2021 (Annexure-1/1) and the Advertisement No 14/2023 (Annexure-2) and since the petitioners have already qualified on merit as would be evident from Important Notice dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition), they should be given appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor along with all consequential benefits. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 39. Accordingly, all the writ applications stand allowed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/05/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 22.05.2026