( 2026:JHHC:21584-DB ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 46 of 2025 With I.A. No. 10167 of 2025 1. Dilip Kumar Yadav aged 36 years, Son of Baleshwar Yadav: Resident of Village-Anchala, P.O.-Soh, P.S. + District - Garhwa. 2. Naveen Kumar aged 33 years, Son of Ramu Ram; Resident of Purani Bazar, P.O. + P.S. +District-Garhwa. 3. Shyam Bihari Kushwaha aged 40 Years, Son of Late Laichu Mehta; Resident of Bhatti Road, Sonpurwa, P.O. + P.S. + District - Garhwa. 4. Punam Devi aged 55 Years, Wife of Virendra Prasad; Resident of Dipuwan Mohalla, P.O.+P.S+District-Garhwa. 5. Chanda Kumari Aged 39 Years, Wife of Devendra Baitha, Resident of At & P.O.-Adhoura, P.S.-Nagar Untari, Palhe Kalan & District-Garhwa. 6. Punam Devi aged 37 Years, Wife of Shivbachan Goand; Resident of Sonpurwa, P.O. + P.S.+ District – Garhwa. 7. Amresh Kumar Upadhyay Aged 37 Years, Son of Bhuwaneshwar Upadhyay Resident of Village-Gorheya, P.O.- Ranka Bouliya, P.S. & District - Garhwa. 8. Ganga Lal Bind aged 39 Years, Son of Ram Lakhan Bind; Resident of At & P.O. Nawada, P.S. + District - Garhwa. 9. Baby Kashyap aged 34 Years, daughter of Krishna Kashyap: Resident of Ranki Mohalla, P.O. + P.S. + District - Garhwa. ... ... Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand; Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. + P.S.-Dhurwa & District-Ranchi. 3. Director in Chief- Cum-Chief Commandant, Home Guard Brigade Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office At P.0, P.S. & District – Ranchi. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, Office at, P.O, P.S. & District-Garhwa. 5. Superintendent of Police, Garhwa, Office at, P.O, P.S. & District - Garhwa. 6. District Commandant, Jharkhand Home Guard Brigade, Garhwa, Office at, P.O, P.S. & District - Garhwa … ... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Appellants : Mr Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate Mr Chanchal Chhaya, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-II ----- 03 /Dated: 20.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated 19.09.2024 dismissing W.P.(S) No. 3818 of 2023. ( 2026:JHHC:21584-DB ) 2 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2008 for 67 posts of home guards, the appellants took part in the selection process and, in fact, they were selected. However, only 23 selected candidates, by order of merit, were sent for training and thereafter issued appointment letters. He submitted that the denial of appointment to the appellants even though 67 posts had been advertised was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 6109 of 2009 before this Court, but the same was withdrawn after the assurance was given that the appellants would be appointed against future vacancies. He pointed out that in the Advertisement No. 01/2023 and Notice issued on 05.05.2025, there is nothing stated about accommodating the appellants based on their selection pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2008. 5. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellants submits that non- appointment of the appellants pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01/2008 was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and further, acting contrary to the assurance given to the appellants, when the appellants, relying on such assurance, withdrew W.P.(S) No. 6109 of 2009, is also ex facie arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has specifically denied that any assurance was given to the appellants to appoint them based on the alleged selection pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2008. He submitted that there was an apparent mistake in Advertisement No. 01/2008, inasmuch as 67 posts were advertised, but in fact, at that stage, there were only 23 posts. He submitted that the selection process under Advertisement No. 01/2008 was completed in 2009 itself. The selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2023 has ( 2026:JHHC:21584-DB ) 3 also been concluded, wherein the appellants did not even participate. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no error whatsoever in the learned Single Judge’s order and this appeal should be dismissed. 7. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 8. In the Advertisement No. 01/2008, 67 posts may have been advertised. However, upon realising the error that there were only 23 vacancies, only 23 selected candidates, by the order of their merit, were sent for training and, upon conclusion of their training, appointed as Home Guards. This process concluded in the year 2009 itself, as held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 19.09.2024. 9. The appellants did institute W.P (S) No. 6109 of 2009 before this Court. However, the same was withdrawn by the appellants. Since it is the case of the appellants that some assurance was given to them that they would be selected against future posts based on the selection under Advertisement No. 01/2008, the minimum that was expected was that this order disposing of W.P (S) No. 6109 of 2009 is enclosed along with this appeal or relied upon in W.P (S) No. 3818 of 2023. Neither of these appears to have been done by and on behalf of the appellants. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondents has strongly disputed that any such assurance was given. Even if that were the case, we believe that such assurances cannot be given, because any selection that may have taken place in 2008-09 cannot govern the filling of vacancies under Advertisement No. 01/2023, i.e., after almost 15 years. If this were allowed, the candidates who become eligible during this long interregnum of 15 years would be deprived of their rights to be considered for appointment, given the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution. ( 2026:JHHC:21584-DB ) 4 11. The Appellants are trying to take undue advantage of an error in the Advertisement No. 01/2008, which had caused them no legal prejudice whatsoever. Just as waitlists cannot operate as sources of appointment, and that too for some unreasonable length of time like 15 years, so also the so-called selection of the Appellants in 2008-09 cannot entitle the Appellants to any future vacancies without participation in the selection process. A mere selection does not give any indefeasible right to appointment, much less so, in the absence of vacancies. In any event, based on the so-called selection in 2008-09, the Appellants cannot insist on blocking selection processes for future vacancies until they are accommodated and appointed. 12. Further, we note that W.P (S) No. 3818 of 2023 in which the impugned order has been made was instituted only in the year 2023. By an I.A., the appellants seek to bring on record the Notice of 2025 again to submit that they are not being accommodated pursuant to their alleged selection under Advertisement No. 01/2008. As noted earlier, there was an obvious error in the Advertisement No. 01/2008 in stating the number of posts to be filled in. The appellants cannot take advantage of this error and claim that their case should be considered for direct appointment to any future vacancies. 13. There is no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without any order for costs. 14. I.A. No. 10167 of 2025 also does not survive and is disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 20, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 22.07.2026