2026:JHHC:19033 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2167 of 2025 …… 1. Saurabh Kumar Choubey, aged about 33 years, son of Sanjay Kumar Choubey R/o Vill. Deogana, P.O -Deogana, P.S.- Meral Garhwa, District Garhwa-822114, State Jharkhand 2. Naman Sharma, aged about 34 years, son of Kuldeep Sharma, R/o-Sharma Book Depot Village, P.O. & P.S. Nangal Soti District- Bijnor -246732, State Uttar Pradesh …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Through its Chairman and CEO, ONGC Deendayal Urja Bhawan, 5A, Nelson Mandela Marg, P.O. & P.S. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. 3. Head Co-Ordination, ONGC Deendayal, Urja Bhawn, 5A, Nelson Mandela Marg, P.O. & P.S. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. 4. Dy Basin Manager, ONGC 2-4 Floors, Technopolis Building, P.O. & P.S. Salt Lake City, Block BP, Sector V, Kolkata-700091. 5. Asset Manager, ONGC CBM Asset, First Floor, HSCL Building, P.O. and P.S. Bokaro Steel City Bokaro-827001. ….. Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sneha Kumari, Adv For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Aabhijit Singh, CGC For the Resp. 2 to 5 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Adv Mr. Mehul Raj, Adv Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Adv …… 7/ 23.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2024; whereby the recruitment to the 2026:JHHC:19033 2 post of security supervisor issued in pursuance to the recruitment of 2017 (Annexure-12) has been cancelled. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein, at paragraph 8, it has been specifically stated that the respondent-Authority after due deliberation, took a decision on 05.09.2024 to abolish 143 posts, including the posts for which the selection was being held. In other words, the post to which the petitioner had applied is no longer in existence, having been abolished, and the respondents have taken recourse to outsourcing the work of security. 4. It is well settled that abolition of a post is a matter of policy decision, and the court cannot interfere with such powers which are inherent with the employer. 5. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J) 23.06.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded on 3.07.2026