2026:JHHC:11872 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5074 of 2024 --------- Dr. Sourya Kumar, Aged about 29 years, son of Nirmal Kumar, Resident of Village Patrol, P.O. & P.S.- Patrol, Sub-division- Madhupur, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand. Pin Code-815353. ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002. 3. Director, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Having its office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834002. 4. Superintendent, Shaheed Nirmal Mahato Medical College and Hospital Dhanbad, having its office at B.C.C.L. Township, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad P.O., P.S. & District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand- 82005. ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate Mr. Nidhi Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, A.C. to G.A.-I --------- 03/Dated:-22.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), particularly a writ, in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the respondents to retain the petitioner in services and further to consider his case for extension of contract, in view of the fact that he has been appointed on the post of Junior Resident (non-academic), in Shaheed Nirmal Mahto Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, in the Department of Dentistry, against a vacant and sanctioned post, on which there has been no intimation of publication of advertisement for regular appointment, and on that account, the respondents cannot undertake a process to replace one contractual appointee with another, and also in view of the fact that there is no regular appointee working on the available four posts of Junior Resident in the hospital all are contractual appointees, further there is no medical officer; (ii) For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to conduct a regular selection process, or regularize the petitioner against the vacant and sanctioned post for Junior Resident, on which he has been appointed after following due process of law, vide appointment letter dated 30.10.2021; 2026:JHHC:11872 2 (iii) For issuance of appropriate order(s)/ direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for allowing the petitioner to continue in service, during the pendency of the present writ application. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-1 in order to point out the parity between Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha and the petitioner, who are at serial Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. He further draws attention towards Annexure-2 to show equality between Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha and Dr. Sourya Kumar. 4. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards the order passed in batch of writ applications i.e., W.P.(S) No.6142 of 2018 with analogous cases, dated 15.01.2026 and submits that Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha was also a petitioner in one of the cases of that batch being W.P.(S) No.5870 of 2024 and his case was discussed at para 9 of the said order. Accordingly, since the petitioner and the said Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha are similarly situated, therefore, the order passed in the case of the said Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha be also extended to this petitioner also. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the counter affidavit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that from Annexures-1 and 2 it is evident that the said Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha and Dr. Sourya Kumar are similarly situated, inasmuch as, vide Annexure-1 Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha was at serial no.1 and the petitioner was at serial no.2 and likewise vide Annexure-2 the said Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha was at 2026:JHHC:11872 3 serial No.2 and the petitioner was at serial no.3 and one batch of cases was decided by a common order in W.P.(S) No.6142 of 2018 with analogous cases wherein the said Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha, who is similarly situated, was also one of the petitioners for the prayer made in the writ application and his case was decided by observing that since the Government has formulated a policy; accordingly, the petitioner should also be entitled to appear in the examination as and when the said examination will be conducted and till then, he should also be not disturbed as in the case of other petitioners. For brevity, para 9 of the order which is in reference to Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha, who is similarly situated, is extracted hereinbelow: “9. So far as the case of the writ petitioner in W.P(S) No. 5870 of 2024 is concerned, its facts are slightly different as the petitioner was appointed as Junior Resident for one year. However, as stated hereinabove in the batch matters that the Government has already formulated a policy; accordingly, he would also be entitled to appear in the examination as and when the said examination will be conducted. Till then, he should also not be disturbed as in the case of other petitioners.” 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and looking to the similarity between the said Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha and the petitioner, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the case of Dr. Bivek Kumar Sinha and the petitioner are one and the same; as such, this Court directs the Respondents that since the Government has already formulated a policy; accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to appear in the examination as and when the said examination will be conducted. Till then, the petitioner should not be disturbed as in the case of respective petitioners of W.P.(S) No.6142 of 2018 with 2026:JHHC:11872 4 analogous cases. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands disposed of. It goes without saying that the observation of weightage given in the aforesaid order passed in the batch matter in paragraph 10 will also apply in the case of the petitioner. 9. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 22, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 20/05/2026