( 2026:JHHC:17264-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2567 of 2022 Anand Vardhan, aged about 48 years, son of Late Jawahar Lal Choudhary, resident of Plot No. F-14, City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.- Sector-4, District- Bokaro. ……. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand represented through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 2. Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. The High Court of Jharkhand, represented through the Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand, having office at High Court of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Ranchi (Jharkhand). ……. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr Rajendra Krishna, Advocate Mr Pratyush Shounikya, Advocate Mr Aayush Avant Srivastava, Advocate Mr Shubham Mayank, Advocate Mr Manish Kumar, Advocate Ms Priya Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III For the Respondent No. 3: Mr Rupesh Singh, Advocate ----- 18 /Dated: 15.06.2026 I.A. No. 2504 of 2023 & I.A. No. 7065 of 2022 1. Mr Rajendra Krishna learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that these I.As. seeking leave to amend the petition are now not being pressed. 2. Accordingly, we dispose of these I.As. W.P.(S) No. 2567 of 2022 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioner, in fact, seeks a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of District Judge, pursuant to ( 2026:JHHC:17264-DB ) 2 Advertisement No. 01/2017/Apptt. Dated 21.09.2017. This advertisement notified 17 vacancies for District Judge (Entry Level) from among Bar Members for the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. 5. On 16.04.2019, the Selection Committee made a recommendation to fill 17 posts as advertised. However, 02 out of 17 candidates failed to join. Of these two vacancies, the Selection Committee recommended the candidates at serial numbers. 18 and 19 vide their recommendation dated 17.10.2019. 6. Given the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Mor Vs. In High Court of Delhi, (2020) 7 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that members of the Judicial Service could not be considered for appointment by way of direct recruitment from the Bar the Full Court on 26.03.2021 resolved to issue notices to Mr Sanjay Kumar Saroj and Mr Anand Kumar Tripathi as to why their candidature should not be cancelled in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement in the case of Dheeraj Mor (supra). 7. Upon considering the response of Mr Sanjay Kumar Saroj and Mr Anand Kumar Tripathi, the Full Court on 07.08.2021 resolved as follows:- “The replies submitted by Mr. Saroj dated 13.04.2021 & Mr. Tripathi dated 13.04.2021 are not found satisfactory in the light of order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Dheeraj Mor Vs. High Court of Delhi. It is hereby resolved to recommend the State Government for cancellation of their appointment from the post of District Judge against advertisement no. 01/2017/Apptt. The 02 vacancies arising thereupon be added in the present recruitment drive under Rule 4(a) [by way of direct recruitment from bar] of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial ( 2026:JHHC:17264-DB ) 3 Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001.” 8. In the affidavits filed on behalf of the High Court on 27.04.2023 and on 13.05.2026, a clear reference has been made to the Full Court’s resolution on 07.08.2021 inter alia to add two vacancies airing out of the cancellation of candidatures of Mr Sanjay Kumar Saroj and Mr Anand Kumar Tripathi in the present recruitment drive under Rule 4 (a), by way of direct recruitment from the Bar, under the Jharkhand Judicial Superior Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001. In fact, reference was made to this decision of the Full Court in its meeting held on 07.08.2021 in the affidavit filed on 27.04.2023 and the same was only reiterated and transcribed in the affidavit filed on 13.05.2026. Admittedly, the petitioner never challenged this decision. I.As. were filed seeking leave to amend the petition, but even they were not pressed, and those I.As. now stand disposed of. 9. Mr Krishna, however, submits that the decision to add the vacancies arising from the cancellation of the candidature of Mr Sanjay Kumar Saroj and Mr Anand Kumar Tripathi to the subsequent direct recruitment drive was never communicated to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has been representing in the matter and was entitled to have his representation considered and the decision thereon communicated to him. He further submits that the Full Court's decision/resolution dated 07.08.2021 does not even contain any reason for not filling the two vacancies by appointing the petitioner and other candidates on the wait list, but instead proceeds to carry forward these vacancies to the subsequent recruitment drive. ( 2026:JHHC:17264-DB ) 4 10. We have duly considered the above contentions in the light of the facts of this case. However, we are not convinced that a case has been made out for extending any benefit to the petitioner, in any event, at this point in time. In effect, the petitioner seeks the operation of the 2017 waitlist in 2026, after much water has flowed under the bridge since that selection process. The petition appears to be based on the premise that a waitlist is always a legitimate source of recruitment and that the petitioner has an indefeasible right to secure an appointment once he is placed on the waitlist. Neither of these premises can be held to be legally sound. Besides, there are other reasons for which no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. Firstly, if the petitioner was indeed aggrieved by the decision not to fill up the two vacancies by treating the wait list as a source of employment, and to add two vacancies to the subsequent direct recruitment drive, the petitioner should have challenged the said decision, at least by 27.04.2023. The petitioner cannot claim perpetual ignorance of the resolution/decision of the Full Court taken on 07.08.2021. 12. Mr Krishna also did not dispute the position that a waitlisted candidate does not have an absolute right to appointment against unfilled posts upon any vacancy becoming available. However. He submitted that in the present case, just as the waitlist was used as source for appointment when two of the candidates failed to join, there was no good reason and in any event, no good reason is stated as to why the same course of action was not adopted when the candidatures of Mr Sanjay Kumar Saroj and Mr Anand Kumar Tripathi were cancelled by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Mor (supra). ( 2026:JHHC:17264-DB ) 5 13. Again, apart from the fact that the Full Court's decision in this regard was never challenged, we note that the decision was not arbitrary. By then, considerable time had elapsed since the issue of the Advertisement in 2017, and the continued use of the waitlist as a source for appointment would have caused serious prejudice to the candidates, who, in the meantime, had become eligible and were entitled to be at least considered for appointment against all such vacancies. 14. In Raj Rishi Mehra and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another [(2013) 12 SCC 243], and several other precedents referred to therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that a waitlist cannot normally be regarded as a source for recruitment. The waitlisted candidate can be appointed only if there are specific stipulations and further, the waitlist is not operated for an unreasonable length of time. 15. Although there is no clarity, post the 2017 recruitment, there have been at least two recruitment drives to fill the posts of District Judges by way of direct recruitment from the Bar. The contention that there are still some vacancies has not been substantiated. In any event, as has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, merely because there may be some vacancies, that does not entitle a waitlisted candidate the right to appointment. 1. That apart, it is now well settled that waitlisted candidates are not entitled, as a matter of right, to appointment against unfilled posts upon any vacancy becoming available. This position has been clarified in several decisions, including but not limited to Raj Rishi Mehra (supra), and the numerous decisions referred to in paragraph 15 of that decision. ( 2026:JHHC:17264-DB ) 6 2. Accordingly, for all the above reasons, we find ourselves unable to grant the petitioner any relief in this petition. 3. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed without any order for costs. Pending I.As, if any, are also disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) June 15, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 17.06.2026