2026:JHHC:15332 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 163 of 2024 ….….. 1. Divyanshu Raj, aged about 23 years, S/o Jagdish Prasad Yadav, R/o At-Bhagat More, Bhadauli, Village- Sisai, P.O.+P.S. Sisai, District-Gumla, Jharkhand. 2. Md. Jawed Akhtar, aged about 24 years, S/o Md Noor Nabi, Village- Hasan Karharia, P.O.- Anjana, P.S. Hanwara, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 3. Ujjawal Kumar Roy, aged about 24 years, S/o Rajendra Prasad Roy, Village- Barjora P.O.+P.S.- Pathrol, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand. 4. Disilwa Seth, aged about 23 years, S/o Anup Seth, Village-Sarjamdih, P.O.- Sarjamdih P.S.- Tamar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Pappu Kumar Soren, aged about 24 years, S/o Maha Soren, Village- Dhusara, P.O. Hussainabad, P.S.- Devipur, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand. 6. Mithun Kumar Mandal, aged about 23 years, S/o Abinash Mandal, At- Meghi, P.O.+ P.S- Boarijore, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 7. Md. Altaf Hussain, aged about 25 years, S/o Md. Nehaluddin Ansari, Village-Pachrukhi, P.O. Lukluki, P.S. Godda (Muffasil), District-Godda, Jharkhand. 8. Prem Kumar, aged about 23 years, S/o Chandra Kishor Mandal, Village-Harila, P.O. Dhamni, P.S. Budhai, Block-Madhupur, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand. …. Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, School, Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate of Secondary Education, School, Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 2026:JHHC:15332 2 6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 7. Deputy Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District - Ranchi, Jharkhand 8. Krishna Kumar Gupta, S/o Manoranjan Kumar Gupta, Upper Bazar Marwari Tola, Pethiya Road, P.O. - GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand 9. Anil Kumar Sahu, S/o Ramcharan Sahu, Village- Janwal, P.O.-Kisko, P.S.- Kisko, Janwal, District- Lohardaga, Jharkhand. 10. Pallavi Bera, D/o Dhirendra Nath Bera, At- Upar Pathar Para, P.O. Kaima P.S.- Gurabanda, Upar Pathar, District-East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 11. Vineeta Kumari, D/o Ghanshyam Mandal, A Block- Dadi Village- Hesalong, P.O. Hesalong, P.S. Giddi, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 12. Nafis Raj, S/o Md Hashim Ansari, C/o Rozy Medical Hall, At-Kasmar, P.O. Kasmar, P.S.-Kasmar, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand. 13. Pintu Kumar Paswan, S/o Asarphi Ram, Hishra Barwadih, P.O.-Gahar Pathra, P.S.-Patan, Dist- Palamu, Jharkhand. 14. Prafull Ranjan Mishra, S/o Rajendra Mishra, At Patel Nagar, Sirsiya, P.O.- Sirsiya, P.S.- Giridih, District- Giridih, Jharkhand. 15. Payal Kachhap, S/o Soma Kachua, Village- Balsiring Thurka Toli, P.O. Hatia, P.S.- Hatia, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Adv Mr. ⁠Akash Ajit Kumar, Adv Mr. ⁠Abhishek Abhi, Adv Ms. Tanya Singh, Adv Ms. ⁠Satakchhi Priya Verma, Adv For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, A.C. to A.G. For the Resp.-JSSC : Mrs. Richa Sachita, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate For the Res. No.10 : Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate For the Rsp. Nos. 8, 9 and 10 : Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. No. 15 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate 2026:JHHC:15332 3 ….….. C.A.V. ON: 06/05/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the condition incorporated in Advertisement No. 01/2023 issued for the Jharkhand Lab Assistant Competitive Examination, 2023; whereby an additional qualification was prescribed requiring the candidates to have studied two subjects out of Physics, Chemistry and Biology as Honours/subsidiary subjects for at least two years or three years at the graduation level, apart from securing the prescribed percentage of marks. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the consequential action of the respondents in declaring them ineligible and excluding them from the final selection list despite the petitioners possessing the qualification prescribed under the statutory Rules. Lasty, the petitioners have prayed that their candidature be considered and they be suitably appointed to the post of Lab Assistants. 3. The recruitment in question is governed by the Jharkhand +2 Government Schools Teacher and Non- Teaching Staff Appointment and Service Conditions Rules, 2012, as amended in the years 2022 and 2023. Rule 12 2026:JHHC:15332 4 of the aforesaid Rules prescribes the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant in +2 Government Schools. The Rule, as amended, stipulating thereby that a candidate must possess a graduation degree with minimum 50% marks (45% for reserved category candidates) in any two subjects out of Physics, Chemistry and Biology from a recognized university. 4. It has been pointed out by learned senior counsel Mr. Ajit Kumar that the Advertisement No. 01/2023 was issued by the respondent JSSC for appointment to 690 posts of Laboratory Assistants. However, while issuing the advertisement, a different condition was inserted to the effect that the concerned subjects should have been studied as Honours or subsidiary subjects for at least two years or during all three years of graduation. 5. Further, it has been argued by learned senior counsel that the petitioners participated in the selection process and were declared successful in the written examination. Thereafter, they were called for document verification. During the course of document verification, office letters/show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners alleging that they had not studied the requisite subjects for a period of two years and, therefore, they were ineligible. The petitioners submitted their 2026:JHHC:15332 5 explanations stating therein that under the CBCS pattern introduced pursuant to the UGC guidelines, elective/subsidiary subjects are ordinarily studied for two semesters i.e., one academic year only and, therefore, the petitioners could not have pursued such subjects for two years. 6. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon clarification issued by the concerned University explaining the CBCS curriculum and the manner in which elective subjects are offered. Subsequently, the final results were published on 22.12.2023 and 23.12.2023 wherein the names of the petitioners did not find place. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. It has been submitted that the impugned condition contained in Advertisement No. 01/2023 is in variance and dehors the statutory Rules governing the field. He has argued that Rule 12 of the Rules of 2012 merely requires graduation with prescribed marks in any two subjects out of Physics, Chemistry and Biology and it nowhere prescribes that such subjects must have been studied for two years or three years. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the respondents, by way of advertisement, cannot prescribe an additional eligibility 2026:JHHC:15332 6 condition which is inconsistent with or contrary to the statutory Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that the petitioners fulfill the qualifications prescribed under the statutory Rules and, therefore, rejection of their candidature is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. While heavily relying upon the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17, he argued that in the aforesaid case also exactly same and similar issue had been under consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court when the advertisement in question contained a different condition of work experience i.e. work experience in the government hospitals of Government of Bihar, whereas the Rules did not prescribe so and the candidate namely Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai had challenged the actions of the appointing authorities after having been declared unsuccessful. While referring to the factual matrix narrated in that judgement in paragraph no. 2 to 9, Mr. Kumar has pointed out that in that case also the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Meeta Sahai had applied against 2026:JHHC:15332 7 the advertisement, she was called for interview and she had been declared unsuccessful on account of lack of experience in a hospital run by Government of Bihar and the writ petition was preferred by her with the contention that the clause of work experience in hospitals of Government of Bihar as contained in the advertisement was in contravention of the Rules (which did not prescribe any such limitation of work experience only being in hospitals if the Government of Bihar) and the Hon’ble Apex Court found the conditions prescribed in the advertisement restrictive. Mr. Kumar has also relied upon paragraph 17 of the said judgement in order to address the issue that even after having participated in the selection process arising from the advertisement no. 01/2023, the petitioners shall not be precluded from getting relief in this writ petition because in view of the law laid down in the case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai (supra), a candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process, only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken in it. 2026:JHHC:15332 8 9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is settled principle of law that in case of variance between the Rules of Recruitment and the Advertisement, the Rules have to be given primacy and any part of advertisement which is contrary to the rules have to be stuck down. In support of his contention, the Ld. Sr. counsel seeks to place reliance on the judgment of Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55, for the aforesaid proposition. 10. Lastly, Mr. Ajit Kumar, taking reference to Annexure-7 of the writ petition, which is a document/clarification issued by Sido Kanhu Murmu University that the general electives have to be changed for the third & fourth semester, submits that the elective subjects can be studied for 2 semester (one year) only as per CBCS pattern adopted pursuant to UGC guidelines by the State Universities itself from which the petitioners have completed their studies/graduation, making the condition imposed by the respondents arbitrary, unreasonable and impracticable. 11. Per Contra, the Learned counsel appearing for the State, taking reference to the counter affidavit filed by the State submitted that the Respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission vide letter dated 01.06.2022 had 2026:JHHC:15332 9 sought clarification from the Department of School Education and Literacy regarding the interpretation of minimum educational qualifications for the post of Laboratory Assistant. Specifically, queries were raised on whether candidates must secure 50%/45% marks in each of two science subjects individually or cumulatively, and whether, for Biology, graduation must include both Zoology and Botany or if either one would suffice. 12. It has further been submitted by the Learned counsel that in response to the said letter, the Respondent no. 3, Director of Secondary Education vide letter dated 07.06.2022 clarified that candidate must have a graduation degree with 50% (or 45% for reserved categories) marks separately in any two subjects among Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, studied over at least two or three years of graduation. For Biology posts, it was clarified that studying either Zoology or Botany for the requisite duration with the prescribed marks would qualify as a biology graduate. 13. The Counsel for the State further asserted that these clarifications were issued by the parent Department through its Director of Secondary Education prior to the advertisement and that it retains the 2026:JHHC:15332 10 authority to prescribe educational qualifications for the Laboratory Assistant post as per its requirements. 14. Learned counsel for the JSSC submitted that the Commission merely conducted the examination in terms of the requisition and eligibility conditions supplied by the parent department. It has been submitted that the petitioners after having participated in the recruitment process cannot challenge the conditions as contained in the advertisement after being declared unsuccessful particularly when the qualifications as prescribed in the Rules of 2012 stood clarified. The petitioners since did not fulfil the eligibility condition of having studied the relevant subjects for the prescribed duration, therefore, they have been rightly declared ineligible. 15. Replying to the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate, submitted that the clarification dated 07.06.2022 issued by the Director, Secondary Education is merely an inter-departmental communication and the same cannot amount to amendment of the statutory Rules. It is further contended that executive instructions or departmental clarifications cannot override statutory Rules. To support his contention, he relies on the Judgment of Ajaya 2026:JHHC:15332 11 Kumar Das v. State of Orrisa, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 136. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that the field relating to appointment on the post of Laboratory Assistant is admittedly governed by the Jharkhand +2 Government Schools Teacher and Non- Teaching Staff Appointment and Service Conditions Rules, 2012 framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 12 of the said Rules clearly stipulates that the candidate should possess a graduation degree with prescribed marks in any two subjects out of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The relevant portion of the rules is being quoted herein below: “राºय सरकार या के Æþ सरकार या िवĵिवīालय अनुदान आयोग Ĭारा माÆयता ÿाĮ िवĵिवīालय/महािवīालय से भौितकì शाľ, रसायन शाľ एवं जीव िव²ान म¤ से िकÆहé दो िवषयŌ म¤ 50 ÿितशत अंकŌ के साथ Öनातक कì िडúी अिनवायª होगी” 17. It further appears that the Advertisement No. 01/2023 in clause 5 provides the educational qualifications as under: - “Ɋूनतम शै঴िणक यो৓ता :- (i). उपयु१ঢ कं िडका के ˑʁ -4 म७ अंिकत िकɎी दो िवषयों म७ अलग-अलग 50/45 ঋितशत अंक ঋाɑ करना अिनवाय१ होगा, िजसका ˘ातक ˑर पर ঋितिʿा अथवा स्ɵिडयरी के ॺप म७ ˘ातक के तीनों वषॵ म७ अथवा कम से कम दो वषॵ म७ अȯयन िकया गया हो। (ii). ঋयोगशाला सहायक (जीव िव৯ान) अȶग१त ঋािणशा˓ एवं वन˙ितशा˓ दोनों िवषयों म७ िकसी एक िवषय म७ ˘ातक ˑर पर ঋितʿा अथवा स्ɵिडयरी के ॺप म७ ˘ातक के तीनों वषॵ म७ अथवा कम से कम दो वषॵ म७ अȯयन िकया गया हो तथा उसम७ अलग-अलग 50/45 ঋितशत अंक के साथ ˘ातक की परी঴ा म७ उȅीण१ता हो, को ही यहाँ जीव िव৯ान म७ ˘ातक माना जायेगा” 2026:JHHC:15332 12 18. This Court is of the view that the Rules plainly requires that a candidate must be a graduate with any two subjects out of Physics, Chemistry and Biology with 50%/45% from any University recognised by State Government, Central Government or UGC. The Rules which appear to have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, nowhere requires that the said subjects must have been studied for two years or three years at the graduation level. 19. It is also evident that the relevant advertisement in question i.e. Advertisement No. 1/2023, prescribes a differently worded and varied eligibility condition requiring study of the concerned subjects as honours/subsidiary subjects for at least two years or three years of graduation. 20. It is the settled position in law, as has been held in the case of Ashish Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 55, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 27 of the said judgement held as under: “27.Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in the judgment of 2026:JHHC:15332 13 this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission. Para 21 of the judgment lays down the above proposition which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 512) "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued byPSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and 1-7-2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules." 21. Further, in the case of Ajaya Kumar Das v. State of Orrisa, (2011) 11 SCC 136, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in paragraph 14 held as under: “14.Neither the Circular dated 18-6-1982 nor the subsequent Circular dated 19-3-1983 modifying the earlier Circular dated 18- 6-1982 can override the statutory provision contained in Rule 74(b) of the Code if it results in reduction of pay of the employee on promotion. That the Orissa Service Code has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is not in dispute. It is well settled that the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be amended only by a rule or notification duly made under Article 309 and not otherwise Whatever be the efficacy of the executive orders or circulars or instructions, statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be tinkered by the administrative instructions or circulars.” 22. Having regard to the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court quoted above, this Court has no iota of doubt in holding that in the case of variance and contradictions having found in the provisions of the statutory Rules and advertisement, the statutory Rules would prevail over conditions contained in an advertisement and as per law the advertisement cannot override, amend or supplement statutory provisions. Once the Rules prescribe a 2026:JHHC:15332 14 particular qualification, any addition or alteration thereto could only have been made by amending the Rules in accordance with law and not by way of executive instructions or by seeking clarification by way of internal official communications as is being claimed to have been done in the present case. The clarifications sought by the respondent-JSSC and any such clarification given by the authority cannot justify insertion of varied or additional conditions in the advertisement. 23. The clarification dated 07.06.2022 issued by the Director, Secondary Education cannot be treated as an amendment to the statutory Rules. The said clarification is merely an official communication and does not possess any statutory force. It is trite law that executive instructions may supplement statutory Rules where the Rules are silent; however, executive instructions cannot run contrary to or override statutory provisions. 24. In the present case, the statutory Rules specifically prescribe the educational qualification and do not contain any requirement regarding the duration for which the concerned subjects are to be studied. Therefore, only at the strength of few official communications which cannot also be treated to be 2026:JHHC:15332 15 executive instructions having not issued in the name of the Governor of Jharkhand, the respondents could not have inserted such an additional condition through the advertisement and on that basis the petitioners cannot be disqualified. 25. This Court further finds substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that under the CBCS pattern adopted by various Universities pursuant to UGC norms, elective/general subsidiary subjects are ordinarily studied only for limited semesters. Consequently, insistence upon study of such subjects for two years would result in exclusion of otherwise eligible candidates despite they having possessed the qualification prescribed under the statutory Rules. Such a condition, apart from being dehors the Rules, also appears arbitrary and unreasonable. 26. On the issue that the petitioners who have already participated in the recruitment process and have raised grievances after being declared unsuccessful, whether can maintain the writ petition, this court is of the firm view that a candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. Apparently in the present case, 2026:JHHC:15332 16 the petitioners have alleged misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, which cannot be condoned merely because they have participated in the recruitment process. 27. The Hon’ble Apex Court has, thus, while also considering the principle of estoppel to be applied on a candidate from challenging the selection process after having failed in it, in paragraph-17 of its judgement rendered in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17 held as under: “17However, we must differentiate from this principle insofar as the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection process only accepts the prescribed procedure and not the illegality in it. In a situation where a candidate alleges misconstruction of statutory rules and discriminating consequences arising therefrom, the same cannot be condoned merely because a candidate has partaken it. The Constitutional scheme is sacrosanct and its violation in any manner is impermissible. In fact, a candidate may not have locus to assail the incurable illegality or derogation of the provisions of the Constitution, unless he/she participates in the selection process.” Emphasis Supplied 28. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The relevant clause 5 of the advertisement no. 1/2023 is construed to include the qualifications as prescribed in Rule 12 of the Jharkhand +2 Government Schools Teacher and Non-Teaching Staff Appointment and Service Conditions Rules, 2012, as amended in the years 2022 and 2023 i.e. “राºय सरकार या के Æþ सरकार या िवĵिवīालय अनुदान आयोग Ĭारा माÆयता ÿाĮ िवĵिवīालय/महािवīालय से भौितकì शाľ, रसायन शाľ एवं 2026:JHHC:15332 17 जीव िव²ान म¤ से िकÆहé दो िवषयŌ म¤ 50 ÿितशत अंकŌ के साथ Öनातक कì िडúी अिनवायª होगी” and the Respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for appointment to the posts they applied for in the Advertisement no. 1/2023 on the basis of their qualifications as they possess. 29. Consequently, the office letters/show-cause notices issued to the petitioners treating them as ineligible on the basis of the aforesaid condition and the consequential action excluding the petitioners from consideration are also quashed. 30. Since this Court, vide order dated 13.09.2024 had directed to reserve the 8 posts of Laboratory Assistants for the petitioners, the respondents shall complete the exercise as enumerated in paragraph no 28 within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 31. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A. if any are also closed. No cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:15/05/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 23.05.2026 2026:JHHC:15332 18