Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20720-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI I.A. No. 10661 of 2023 In / And L.P.A. No. 653 of 2023 1. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, having office at Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. – Lalpur, Town and District - Ranchi. 2. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission having office at Circular Road, P.O.& P.S. Lalpur, Town and District - Ranchi. ... Respondent No. 3 & 4/Appellants Versus 1. Somnath Oraon, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Temba Oraon, resident of village- Mahuwajari, P.O Mahuwajari P.S - Mandar and District- Ranchi. … … Petitioner/Respondent 2. State of Jharkhand through the Additional Chief Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi. 3. The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S-Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi. 4. The Secretary-cum Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S - Dhurwa, Town and District- Ranchi. 5. Mr Birendra Kindo, Son of Not Known to the petitioner, presently posted as District Supply Officer, Gharwa, P.O and P.S and District through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhsha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S - Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi. ... Respondents/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20720-DB For the Appellants: Mr Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr Jay Prakash, Advocate For the State: Ms Maushami Chatterjee, A.C. to G.A.-V) --------- 07/Dated: 13.07.2026 1. Heard Mr Sanjay Piprawall for the appellants. 2. This time-barred appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 10.07.2023, which directed the appellants, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, only to recommend Somnath Oraon (original petitioner), the next best candidate on the merit list, after finding that the last recommended candidate had failed to complete the prescribed procedures and, consequently, no appointment order was issued to him. 3. Oraon is, incidentally, a candidate belonging to the scheduled tribe community, who, despite a favourable ruling from the learned Single Judge almost three years ago, is yet to see the fruits of his success, simply because the JPSC, without being excused by any interim order from any Court, refused or avoided to follow the binding direction in the impugned order. 4. Apart from our failure to understand how the JPSC can be aggrieved by such a direction, we are extremely disturbed by the JPSC’s modus operandi in virtually disobeying this Court’s direction for almost three years by simply filing this belated appeal and letting it remain pending before the Registry for failure to clear office objections. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20720-DB 5. For the past three years, and even now, there has been no interim relief secured by the JPSC from any Court that would excuse the JPSC from complying with the direction contained in the order dated 10.07.2023. Despite the absence of such interim relief, by filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation and then, not clearing the office objections for almost two years, the JPSC has succeeded in avoiding, if not virtually disobeying, the orders of this Court. This is not expected of a JPSC, which is a Constitutional body, particularly when it is dealing with a Constitutional Court and its orders granting relief to a member of a scheduled tribe community. 6. Mr Piprawall, by arguing on the merits of the appeal, now tries to rely upon some government resolution or circular and an order made by this Court in the context of appointment of waitlisted candidates. Before the delay is condoned, we are not obliged to consider the merits of the appeal. But, at the insistence of Mr Piprawal, and since that seemed his best ground even for condonation, we considered the argument. However, upon evaluation, we find no merit in it. 7. Firstly, we note that the State Government has not challenged the direction issued in the order dated 10.07.2023 on the ground that it breaches any circular, resolution, or Court decision. We fail to understand how a JPSC, which is only a recommending authority, could be said to have been aggrieved. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20720-DB 8. Secondly, this is not a case where the JPSC contends that the respondent-Oraon (the original petitioner) was not next on the waitlist/merit list in terms of the marks secured, or that there was any issue about his eligibility or the selection process. Still, for almost three years, the JPSC simply avoided complying with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in this matter. 9. Thirdly, there was no breach of any circular, resolution, or Court decision involved in the facts of the present case. Here, not even an appointment letter was issued to the first candidate on the merit list for failure to comply with mandatory procedures. This candidate had no grievance about his exclusion. There was no issue of any unreasonable delay or breach of timelines in recommending the next candidate on the waitlist/merit list, i.e. Oraon. Still, for reasons best known to the JPSC, no recommendation was made, forcing Oraon, a tribal, to knock the doors of a Constitutional Court. 10. In the application seeking condonation of delay as well, the JPSC has tried to touch upon the merits of the matter; therefore, we are constrained to make the above-referred observations to point out that, even on the merits, it is not as if the JPSC has made out any case warranting interference. 11. That apart, the application proceeds on the basis that the delay in filing the appeal is 52 days, but the registry has pointed out that Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20720-DB the delay was of 92 days. Neither was the I.A. amended nor was any supplementary affidavit filed to explain this additional delay. 12. Even the reasons stated for condonation are incorrect because they fail to consider the principle that once the limitation period starts running, it cannot be interrupted by subsequent events such as Durga Puja vacations. In fact, by the time the Durga Puja vacations commenced, the limitation period had already expired. 13. In paragraph 13 of the IA, there is an omnibus statement that the delay was due to “procedural reason and in view of the fact stated in the earlier paragraphs”. Then there is a usual averment that the delay is not intentional and rather, the delay has been caused “which was beyond the control of the appellants.” 14. Based upon such routine averments, delay cannot be condoned. This is a matter where the JPSC has not acted quite fairly and has avoided, if not disobeyed, the orders of this Court on the pretext that an appeal was pending. As noted earlier, the appeal was filed after the prescribed limitation period, and even the objections were not resolved for almost two years. Based upon this self-created pendency, the JPSC avoided, if not disobeyed, the orders of this Court. This is not how a high constitutional authority like JPSC should deal with the legitimate claim of a poor tribal from the State. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20720-DB 15. On a cumulative consideration of all the above factors, we dismiss the IA, and consequently, the accompanying appeal would not survive and is disposed of. 16. We hope that, at least now, the JPSC will not further prolong the misery of a poor tribal candidate and will not force the candidate to file a contempt petition once again for disobeying the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Mr Piprawal assured us that this would not happen and that the necessary recommendation would be made at the earliest. We therefore leave that matter at that. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 13, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 15.07.2026