2026:JHHC:19128 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 3982 of 2026 --------- Mukesh Kumar Verma, aged about 37 years, son of Tarni Mahto, resident of Village- Bhawardih, P.O.- Badwara, P.S.- Bengabad, District- Giridih. ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. Secretary, School, Education and Literacy Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Kali Nagar Chaibagan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Kali Nagar Chaibagan, P.O. & P.S.- Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Oishi Das, A.C. to A.G. M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Jay Prakash, Advocates --------- 02/Dated: 30.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: For issuance of show cause upon the respondent especially respondent no. 4 and 5, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission as to under what authority/jurisdiction it has advertised fewer seats or no seats at all for the Backward Class- II category in Advertisement no. 02/2023 (Annexure-1 for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in various subjects which is in direct contravention of Jharkhand Reservation Act, 2001 and Jharkhand Reservation in Posts and Services Vacancies (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class) (Amendment) Act, 2019, which mandatorily prescribes 6% posts to be reserved for BC- II category in the process of appointment through direct recruitment. For quashing of clause 3 of the Advertisement no. 02/2023, whereby no seats have been advertised in BC- II category for appointment through direct recruitment which is out and out illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as against the settled principle of reservation and also against the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court. Further the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ or a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher as the respondents are not following the guidelines as laid Down by the Hon'ble Court rather they are relying on pick and choose policy. 2026:JHHC:19128 2 For directing the respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to publish fresh advertisement by reserving/earmarking 6% posts for the BC-II category in the advertisement no. 02/2023 for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teachersin consonance with the Jharkhand Reservation Act, 2001 and Jharkhand Reservation in Posts and Services Vacancies (For Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class) (Amendment) Act, 2019. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ application is same and similar with that of W.P.(S) No. 2113 of 2023; accordingly, similar order may be passed in the instant case also by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent for consideration of his case for appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that since no counter affidavit has been filed; as such, the petitioner may approach the concerned respondent for consideration of his case. 5. Looking to the prayer made in this writ application, it appears that a similar issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2113 of 2023 with analogous cases, wherein this Court after going through the submission of the respondent-State has passed the following order: “9. In light of the aforesaid submissions made by the respondent State, the petitioners humbly submit before this Court to dispose of the writ petitions with the direction upon the respondent State to consider the petitioners for appointment to the remaining posts on the basis of their inter-se-merit. 10. Having regard to the fair submission and the averments made by the respondent-State, interest of justice would be sufficed by disposing of all these writ applications with a direction to the respondent-State to consider these petitioners for appointment to the remaining posts on the basis of their inter-se merit. 11. Though, it has been contended by Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the same should be restricted to the petitioners in the light of judgment passed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347; wherein at para 22.2 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason 2026:JHHC:19128 3 that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.” 12. However, this particular prayer is not acceded by this Court and the respondents are directed to consider this aspect while taking into consideration the appointment to the remaining posts as mentioned in para 10 of the supplementary counter affidavit from among the eligible candidates.” 6. Having regard to the above, the instant writ application stands disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the 4th respondent within a period of 4 weeks and the 3rd and 4th respondents are directed to take a final decision in the matter within a further period of 8 weeks. The time shall be calculated from the date of receipt of fresh representation along with copy of this order before the concerned respondent. 7. It goes without saying that if the case of the petitioner is found favourable, consequential order be also passed within a further period of four weeks. 8. Pending I.A., if any also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) JUNE 30, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 07/07/2026