2026:JHHC:14067-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 220 of 2026 1. Amit Kumar Sinha, S/o Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, R/o 323, Chhat Talab Road, near Mahabir Gas Agency, Saraidhela, Phuphudi, P.O. & P.S.-Saraidhela, District-Dhanbad 2. Ganesh Mahto, S/o Bandhu Mahto, R/o Village-Palani, P.O.-Paloni, P.S.-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad 3. Md. Afsar Ansari, S/o Md. Akramul Ansari, R/o Village-Karmatand, P.O. & P.S.-Govindpur, District-Dhanbad 4. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, S/o Ram Prasad Choudhary, R/o Kusum Bihar, BCCI Township, Saraidhela, P.o. & P.S.-Dhanbad 5. Bishwanath Singh, S/o Nimai Singh, R/o Village-Pradhan Khanta, P.O.-Pradhan Khanta, P.S.-Baliapur, District-Dhanbad 6. Suresh Kumar Yadav, S/o Ramkhekawan Yadav, R/o Village- Baramasia, near Durga Mandir, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad 7. Shambhu Kumar, S/o Gopal Chouhan, R/o near Jalan Factory, new Colony, Khari Kabad, Kusunda, P.O.-Kusunda, Dhanbad 8. Deepak Kumar, S/o Anil Kumar, R/o 56, N.H. 39a, near Kushala School, Village-Kushala, P.O. & P.S.-Kushoha, District-Garhwa 9. Ajay Kumar Mahato, S/o Gokhul Mahato, R/o Maklikdih, Village- Dhokhara, P.O.-Domo, P.S.-Daonsar, District-Dhanbad ….. Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare, Ranchi 2. Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS), through its Director, Ranchi 3. The Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science (RIMS), Ranchi ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants: Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Res.-State: Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, A.C. to G.A.-V For the Res.-RIMS: Mr. Sharan Toppo, A.C. to Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ----- 02/11.05.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This L.P.A. is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 29.01.2026 dismissing the appellants’/petitioners’ W.P.(S) No. 235 of 2024, which was instituted to challenge the reasoned order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Director of Rajendra 2026:JHHC:14067-DB 2 Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi cancelling Advertisement No. 2292 dated 20.05.2022. As a result, the petitioners, who claimed to have been selected in the selection process, which commenced in pursuance of Advertisement No. 2292 dated 20.05.2022, were deprived of their appointments. 3. Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that vide Advertisement No. 955(C) dated 08.03.2019, Class-IV posts had been advertised. However, that advertisement was cancelled and Advertisement No. 2292 dated 20.05.2022 was issued. Now, for no fault on the part of the petitioners, even Advertisement No. 2292 dated 20.05.2022 has been cancelled and the petitioners have arbitrarily been denied appointments to Class-IV posts, for which they had applied. 4. Ms. Ritu Kumar submits that this selection process continued for considerable time and due to its arbitrary cancellation for no fault on the part of the petitioners, there is possibility that some of them would also be age-barred for fresh appointment, if a fresh selection process is now allowed. Accordingly, she submits that the impugned cancellation order deserves to be set aside. Since this aspect has not correctly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 warrants interference. 5. Mr. Sharan Toppo, learned A.C. to Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-RIMS, submits that cancellation of advertisement dated 20.05.2022 was in pursuance of this Court’s judgment passed in the case of Ramesh Hansda & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others and connected matters [W.P. (C) 3894 of 2021 decided on 16.12.2022]. He also submits that pursuant to this cancellation, Advertisement No. 2026:JHHC:14067-DB 3 955(C) dated 08.03.2019 was revived and the appointments were made pursuant to the selection process, which was commenced under the said advertisement. Accordingly, he submits that this L.P.A. may be dismissed. 6. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 7. The record of this case shows that vide Advertisement No. 955(C) dated 08.03.2019, the RIMS invited applications for filling up Class- IV posts at RIMS, Ranchi. Pursuant to the said selection process, a list of candidates selected for appointments was also published on 20.10.2020. 8. The reasoned order dated 19.03.2024, which was impugned in W.P.(S) No. 235 of 2024, and from which this L.P.A. arises, records that on 06.04.2021, the entire selection process initiated pursuant to Advertisement No. 955(C) dated 08.03.2019, was cancelled vide Memo No. 1592 dated 06.04.2021 in the light of Circular No. 821 dated 05.02.2021 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 9. The reasoned order also records that the cancellation order dated 06.04.2021 was challenged by some of the selected candidates by instituting W.P. (S) No. 3267 of 2021, which was allowed. L.P.A. No. 565 of 2022 was disposed of with partial modification in the learned Single Judge’s order. 10. Pursuant to this, a fresh Advertisement No. 2292 dated 20.05.2022 was issued. The reasoned order dated 19.03.2024 states that “on 20.05.2022, the posts which had earlier been advertised through Advertisement No. 955(C), were re-advertised through Advertisement No. 2292 dated 20.05.2022.” 11. The record also shows that in Clause-5 (ii) of Advertisement No. 2292 dated 20.05.2022, there was a stipulation that the applicants 2026:JHHC:14067-DB 4 must have passed Matriculation/10th Class Examination from an educational institution located and recognized in the State of Jharkhand. Apart from this, the applicants had to be “the citizens of Jharkhand.” 12. It now transpires that the above condition was inserted in terms of Rules 2 & 7 of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Examination (Graduate Level) Conduct (Amendment) Rules, 2021. 13. In W.P. (C) No. 3894 of 2021, instituted by Ramesh Hansda and others, Rules 2 & 7 were challenged as unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By a detailed judgment pronounced on 16.12.2022, Rules 2 & 7 referred to above were struck down, and the directions were issued to Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) to initiate a fresh selection process. 14. Paragraph Nos. 59 to 66 of the coordinate Bench’s judgment dated 16.12.2022 disposing of W.P. (C) No. 3894 of 2021 and other connected matters, are transcribed herein below for convenience of reference: “59. This Court, in the entirety of facts and discussions as also judicial pronouncements, is of the considered view that the impugned rules, as contained under Rules, 2021 are discriminatory on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India not based upon intelligible differentia rather are unreasonable, and as such the Rule 2 and Rule 7 of the Rules, 2021 are held to be invalid, as the same are in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the issues framed by this Court are answered in favour of petitioners. 60. The question arises now that what will be the consequence, pertaining to the applications already invited of the candidates for their participation in the process of selection, as Rule 2 and Rule 7 of the Rules, 2021 have been declared to be invalid. 61. It requires to refer herein that this Court, considering the fact that serious challenge has been made to the validity of the Rules, has made the examinations/selection process being done as per Rules, 2021 subject to outcome to the writ petitions, vide 2026:JHHC:14067-DB 5 order dated 01.12.2021. The relevant part of the order is quoted as under: As prayed, put up this matter on 21.12.2021 enabling the State to file appropriate counter affidavit and produce the concerned file for perusal of this Court showing under what circumstances those decisions have been taken by the State as it is being alleged by the writ petitioner that under the garb of these substitution/amendments in the concerned Rules, 100% reservation in State of Jharkhand is contemplated. In above view of the matter, as serious challenge has been made to the validity of the concerned Rules being in the teeth of the provisions of the Constitution of India, we deem it desirable that all the exams/selection process being done in the concerned amended Rules would be subject to the result of this writ petition and this should be well reflected in the advertisement made for the purpose by the authorities who are engaged in selection process/examination conducting authority. [Emphasis supplied] 62. Since, this Court has made the examination/selection process subject to the outcome of the instant writ petitions vide order dated 01.12.2021 and now the Rule 2 and 7 of the Rules, 2021 have been declared to be invalid by this Court, as such the consequence will be that the selecting agency (JSSC) would have to initiate the process of selection afresh. 63. Therefore, the respondents-State of Jharkhand as also the respondent-JSSC are directed to initiate a fresh process of selection. 64. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand allowed. 65. Consequent upon disposal of the writ petitions, the pending Interlocutory Application(s) stands disposed of. 66. The original record of proceeding, called for by this Court, be returned to the authority concerned.” 15. In view of the above judgment and directions contained therein, the respondents had no option but to withdraw/cancel Advertisement No. 2292 dated 20.05.2022. The said advertisement was based on a condition, which was already struck down by a co-ordinate Bench. The said advertisement, by implication, would 2026:JHHC:14067-DB 6 not survive and therefore was formally cancelled/withdrawn by the impugned reasoned order dated 19.03.2024. 16. Accordingly, we see no error in the decision to cancel/withdraw the advertisement dated 20.05.2022. This is more so because, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.05.2022, though the petitioners may have been selected, they were not actually appointed, nor had they already joined the services in their selected posts. Mere selection based on an advertisement containing the eligibility condition, which was struck down by this Court, does not confer any vested or indefeasible right upon the petitioners to insist upon an appointment. 17. Accordingly, we see no good ground to interfere with the learned Single Judge’s order dated 29.01.2026. 18. So far as revival of Advertisement No. 955(C) dated 08.03.2019 is concerned, at least the impugned reasoned order dated 19.03.2024 is not clear on this aspect. 19. Accordingly, if the petitioners or any other parties have any grievance against such alleged revival or appointments made based upon such alleged revival, they shall be at liberty to take such steps as they may be advised in accordance with law. 20. Similarly, Ms Ritu Kumar’s contention about the age-bar, etc., at the highest, would afford the petitioners a fresh cause of action if and when any fresh advertisement is issued, and, at that stage, it would be open to the petitioners to take such steps as they may be advised in accordance with law. 21. For the present, the two issues above do not arise for our consideration, and therefore, we refrain from making any observations on them one way or the other. All contentions of the parties, on these two additional issues, are therefore left open. 2026:JHHC:14067-DB 7 22. The present L.P.A. is accordingly disposed of in the above terms without interfering with the learned Single Judge’s order dated 29.01.2026. There shall be no order for costs. (M. S. SONAK, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 11.05.2026 Satish/Vikas/ Uploaded on 13.05.2026