[2026:JHHC:21802] 1 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.4463 of 2026 ------ 1. Alok Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Ram Charan Sahu, resident of House No. 105, Anandi, P.O. & P.S. – Ormanjhi, District- Ranchi. 2. Binay Kumar, aged about 38 years, son of Bhukhal Raut, resident of Village – Khumargadiya, P.O. – Bajto, P.S. & District – Giridih 3. Mourice Ekka, aged about 48 years, son of Vijay Vincent Ekka, resident of Kotpali, P.O. – Kotpali, P.S. – Narkopi, District – Ranchi. 4. Parikshit Kumar, aged about 43 years, son of Fakir Chandra Chakravortty, resident of Chas, P.O. & P.S. – Kalapatthar, District – Bokaro. 5. Tanveer Alam, aged about 39 years, son of Ainul Ansari, resident of New Road, Millat Colony, P.O. & P.S. – Lohardaga, District – Lohardaga. 6. Gulam Nabi Ansari, aged about 38 years, son of Nijam Ansari, resident of Ward No. 6, Village – Manho, Nawatoli, P.O. – Hirhi, P.S.- Lohardaga, District – Lohardaga. 7. Ashish Bhagat, aged aobut 46 years, son of Basant Bhagat, resident of Belagara, P.O. & P.S. – Gumla, District – Gumla. 8. Manil Kumar Jha, aged about 41 years, son of Chandrakant Jha, resident of 18/A, Dudhi Chak, P.O. & P.S. – Godda, District – Godda. 9. Suresh Toppo, aged about 45 years, son of Bandhan Toppo, resident of Danru, Senha, P.O. – Danru, P.S.- Lohardaga, District – Lohardaga. 10. Nishant Bajpai, aged about 41 years, son of Umesh Kumar Bajpai, resident of Qr. No. L2/11, Kulshi Road, P.O. & P.S. – [2026:JHHC:21802] 2 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases Sakchi, District – East Singhbhum. 11. Dhiraj Mahto, aged about 40 years, son of Paresh Nath Mahto, resident of Tutki Nawadih, P.O. – Tutki Nawadih, P.S. – Silli, District – Ranchi. 12. Santosh Kumar Pal, aged about 40 years, son of Ram Pravesh Pal, resident of Village – Batokala, P.O. – Pachadumar, P.S. – Ketar, District – Garhwa. 13. Ajit Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Jag Narayan Pandey, resident of Hanumangari Road, P.O. & P.S. – Patratu, District – Ramgarh. 14. Laxman Kumar Mahto, aged about 40 years, son of Fanibhushan Mahto, resident of Gram Chitodih, Reladih P.O. & P.S. Bundu, District – Ranchi. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. – Dhurwa, District – Ranchi. 3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkom, P.O. & P.S. – Namkom, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834010 4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkom, P.O. & P.S. – Namkom, District – Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834010. … Respondents [2026:JHHC:21802] 3 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases With W.P. (S) No.4912 of 2026 ------ Khushboo Bhardwaj, aged about 40 years, W/o Kumar Shekhar, R/o Village Bhangabandh, P.O. Bishanpur, P.S. Jarmundi & District – Dumka. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. – Doranda & District – Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry & Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Nepal House, P.O., P.S. Doranda & District – Ranchi 4. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi. 5. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi. 6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. – Namkum & District – Ranchi … Respondents With W.P. (S) No.4819 of 2026 ------ [2026:JHHC:21802] 4 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases 1. Alok Kumar, aged about 39 years, S/o Ram Charan Sahu, R/o House No. 105, Anandi P.O. Ormanjhi, P.S. Ormanjhi & District – Ranchi. 2. Laxman Kumar Mahto, aged about 40 years, S/o Fanibhushan Mahto, R/o Village Chitodih, P.O. Reladih, P.S. Bundu & District – Ranchi. 3. Parikshit Kumar Chakrabarty, aged about 43 years, S/o Fakir Chandra Chakrabarty, R/o Village Kalapathar, P.O. Chiksia, P.S. Chas & District – Bokaro. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Nepal House, P.O., P.S. – Doranda & District – Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, Planning and Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Nepal House, P.O., P.S. Doranda & District – Ranchi 4. The Director, Directorate of Economics & Statistical, Planning and Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at Nepal House, P.O., P.S. Doranda & District – Ranchi. 5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi. 6. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi. 7. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection [2026:JHHC:21802] 5 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate Mr. Tejaswa Mohanta, Advocate Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate [In W.P.(S) No. 4463 of 2026] Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Indra Guru, Advocate Ms. Chanchal Jain, Advocate [Both in W.P.(S) No. 4912 of 2026 & W.P.(S) No. 4819 of 2026] For the Respondents : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, AG Ms. Oishi Das, AC to AG Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate [All in W.P.(S) No. 4463 of 2026, W.P.(S) No. 4912 of 2026 & W.P.(S) No. 4819 of 2026] ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Since all these three Writ Petitions (Service) have been filed with the common prayer, hence, all the three Writ Petitions (Service) are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. These Writ Petitions (Service) have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for issuance of appropriate writ, order and direction commanding upon the respondent authorities to relax the age limit of the petitioners as specified in Clause-6 of the Advertisement No. 01 of 2026 named as “Jharkhand Technical Graduate Level Combined [2026:JHHC:21802] 6 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases Competitive Examination – 2026 (Regular)” floated for filling up various vacancies in different posts including the post of Auditor, Fisheries Extension Supervisor and Statistical Assistant etc. All the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 4463 of 2026 applied for the post of Auditor, the sole petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 4912 of 2026 applied for the post of Fisheries Extension Supervisor and all the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 4819 of 2026 applied for the post of Block Statistical Supervisor/Junior Statistical Assistant/Statistical Investigator. The petitioners have further prayed to fix the cut-off date for clarification of the upper-age limit to be 01.08.2015 by substituting the same at para-06 of the said advertisement and in the meantime to allow the petitioners for filling up the Form against the Advertisement No.01 of 2026 issued by the respondent – Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 4. The case of the petitioners is that since the formation of the State of Jharkhand; by way of direct recruitment, no appointment has been made by the Government of Jharkhand for the post of Auditor/ Senior Auditor. Despite Statutory framework governing recruitment having been put in place by the Jharkhand Sub-ordinate Fisheries Services Rules – 2015, the respondent authorities failed to initiate any recruitment process for the post of Fisheries Extension Supervisor for more than seven years from the creation of the cadre. Despite the Statutory creation of the cadre of the Jharkhand Statistical Cadre Rules in the year 2011, the respondent authorities failed to initiate any recruitment process for filling up 293 sanctioned posts of Block [2026:JHHC:21802] 7 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases Statistical Supervisor, Junior Statistical Assistant and Statistical Investigator. 5. Respondent – Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission floated an advertisement way back in the year 2015 for filling up the post of Auditor which was termed as Combined Graduate Level Competitive Examination – 2015; in which, the post of Statistical Assistant and Senior Auditor were also advertised with the cut-off date as 01.08.2015. Some prospective candidates filed W.P.(S) No. 663 of 2016 for re-fixing the cut-off date with respect to age as on 01.08.2010. 6. Vide order dated 16.03.2016, the cut-off date was re-fixed as 01.08.2010. The petitioners applied to the said advertisement of the year 2015 but the same was cancelled without any rhyme or reason. The respondent – Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission again floated Advertisement No. 10 of 2022 as Jharkhand Technical Graduate Level Combine Competitive Examination – 2022 for seven categories of post including the post of Senior Auditor. The cut-off date for computation of the maximum age was taken to be 01.08.2010. In view of the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3894 of 2021 as a Division Bench of this Court held the condition of imposing discrimination on the basis of educational qualification based on territorial region to be discriminatory and held the concerned rules namely Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (Graduate Level) Conduct (Amendment) Rules, 2021 to be un-constitutional; therefore, following the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, a [2026:JHHC:21802] 8 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases decision was taken by the State Government as well as the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to cancel all the examinations in those advertisement; where same condition were stipulated. Consequent upon re-designation of the post of Senior Auditor by formulation of Jharkhand Finance Sub-ordinate Auditors (Appointment, Promotion and other Services condition) Rules – 2024, the petitioners represented to the appropriate authorities for relaxation of age in the Advertisement No. 01 of 2026 but no response was received by the petitioners. The petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 4463 of 2026 filled up the Form against the advertisement floated for filling up the vacancies in the cadre of the Auditor in the year 2015 and 2022, however, because of the acts and conduct of the State Government, the examination and advertisement have been cancelled. Therefore, the future of the petitioners should not be hampered for none of their fault. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in the Writ Petition (Service) be allowed. 7. The case of the sole petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 4912 of 2026 is that in the said advertisement No.10 of 2022, the cut off date for fixation of age limit was prescribed as 01.08.2010. The petitioner being eligible in respect of the said Advertisement No. 10 of 2022, applied for the said post but in view of the said order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3894 of 2021, the said advertisement was cancelled. So, for the same reasons the prayer made by the petitioner of [2026:JHHC:21802] 9 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases W.P.(S) No. 4463 of 2026 and the prayer of the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 4912 of 2026 also be allowed. 8. The petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 4819 of 2026 further pleaded that the issuance of Advertisement No. 01 of 2026 marks the first ever recruitment to the cadre posts under the Jharkhand Statistical Cadre Rules, 2011 after an inordinate delay of merely 15 (fifteen) years from framing of the said recruitment rules rendering a large number of otherwise eligible candidates including the petitioners on account of prolonged and unexplained inaction on the part of the respondent authorities; thereby depriving them an equal opportunity to compete for public employment because they become over age, in respect of the advertisement and thus, has become ineligible. In respect of the identical cadre post of Statistical Assistant in Agriculture Department under Advertisement No. 18 of 2023 where the cut-off date for determining upper-age limit was prescribed as 01.08.2010; thereby effectively granting approximately 13 (thirteen) years of age relaxation to the eligible candidates. In W.P.(S) No. 663 of 2016, this Court was pleased to direct the re-fixation of the upper-age limit for the post of Block Supply Officer, Block Welfare Officer and Circle Inspector. It is next submitted that the fixing of cut-off date to be 01.08.2025 in Advertisement No. 01 of 2026 is arbitrarily unreasonable and unjust. Hence, the petitioners of W.P.(S) No. 4819 of 2026 also prays for the same relief. [2026:JHHC:21802] 10 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others passed in W.P.(S) No. 7526 of 2013 dated 16.01.2014 and submits that therein, the Division Bench of this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of Rajasthan & Others reported in (1997) 6 SCC 614 and considering that no examination for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif) was held after 2008, allowed the said Writ Petition and modified the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement as 31.01.2009 instead of 31.01.2013. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Barnwal & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2023:JHHC:42877-DB and submits that therein, the Division Bench of this Court considering that continuing mandamus to fill up the vacancies each year in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 507 and also taking into consideration the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, allowed the Writ Petition and the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement as 31.01.2023 was modified as 31.01.2019. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar [2026:JHHC:21802] 11 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases & Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Another passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 901 of 2025 and submits that in similar circumstances, relief of age relaxation was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in these Writ Petitions (Service) be allowed. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits at the outset that the cut-off age has been fixed as per the Jharkhand Financial Subordinate Auditors (Appointment, Promotion and other Services condition) Rules, 2024 and the said Rule is not under challenge in W.P.(S) No. 4463 of 2026. 13. Relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Vijay Kumar Mahto & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2026:JHHC:11859-DB, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Division Bench of this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that granting or refusing age relaxation is essentially a policy matter and as long as the policy is not ex-facie arbitrary, unreasonable or vitiated by mala fide, there is no question of issuing a writ to grant a relaxation; simply because the relaxation can never be claimed as a matter of right. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the two judgments of the another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2018 Supreme (Jhk) 130 and in the case of Niraj Kumar Pandey & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others with [2026:JHHC:21802] 12 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases other connected cases passed in L.P.A. No. 202 of 2026 dated 15.04.2026, and wherein the Division Bench of this court, referred to the summary of the principles relating to relaxation of age by modifying the cut-off date in para-5(XVIII) of the judgment of Krishna Kumar Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand & Others (supra), which reads as under:- “(i) The choice of date as a basis for classification fixed by the legislature or its delegate cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary, even if, no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless, it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances, (ii) The cut-off date, to attain the minimum or maximum age, must be specific and determinate on a particular date and it cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date, because it may lead to consequences, anomalies and uncertainties. (iii) Mere errors of government in fixing of cutoff date, which may be unjust and oppressive are not subject to judicial review, it is only its palpable arbitrary exercise which can be declared void. (iv) It is the discretion of the rule-making authority or employer, to fix a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post and it cannot be, per se arbitrary, unless the cut-off date, is as wide off the mark, as to make it wholly unreasonable. (v) A cut-off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision. As soon as a cut-off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date and the persons falling on the wrong side cannot challenge the same, unless, it is as capricious or whimsical as to be wholly unreasonable. (vi) There cannot be any “wholesale relaxation” on the ground that the advertisement is delayed unless, there is an allegation of any mala fides in connection with delay in issuing an advertisement. This wholesale relaxation would make total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate and it might be unfair for large number of similarly situated candidates who may not apply, thinking that they are [2026:JHHC:21802] 13 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases age-barred. (vii) A cut-off date can be provided in terms of the provisions of statute or executive order and if any hardship is caused to some persons or a section of society that may by itself cannot be a ground for holding that the cut-off date so fixed is ultra vires to Article 14 of the constitution. (viii) The fixing of cut-off dates is within the domain of the executive authority. There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut-off date is fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. Therefore, the court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut-off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary.” 14. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in the case of Vijay Kumar Mahto & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra), the Division Bench also took note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra). The learned counsel for the respondents submits that therein, inter alia it was held that there cannot be any wholesale relaxation on the ground that the advertisement is delayed, unless there is an allegation of any mala fide in connection with the delay in issuing the advertisement. It was also observed that therein that the wholesale relaxation would induce total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate and it might be unfair to many similarly situated candidates who may not apply, thinking that they are aged-barred/ over age. The Division Bench of this Court approbated the principles settled by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court that fixing of cut-off date is within the [2026:JHHC:21802] 14 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases domain of Executive Authorities, there may be various considerations, that lead to a particular cut-off date being fixed and thus considerations can be financial, administrative or others. Therefore, the Court should not normally interfere with the fixation of a cut-off date by the Executive Authority unless such an order appears to be on the face of it, blatantly discriminatory or arbitrary. It is further submitted that in none of these Writ Petitions (Service), there is any pleading or contention about mala fide in connection of delay in issuing the advertisement. Hence, it is submitted that these Writ Petitions (Service), being without any merit, be dismissed. 15. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this Court had the occasion to consider a similar matter in the case of Ashit Kumar & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in 2026:JHHC:17118 therein, this Court reiterated the settled principle of law relating to relaxation in the cut-off date of age in para-9 to 11, which reads as under:- “9. It is a settled principle of law that there is no carry- over of eligibility from earlier recruitment and every recruitment stands on its own terms and eligibility is assessed with reference to the specific advertisement and its cut-off date. 10. It is further a settled principle of law that administrative delay does not create a vested right. So, the administrative delay by cancelling the earlier advertisements does not translate into a right to be considered under a different/later recruitment with revised norms. The principle Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit which means an act of the court shall prejudice no man, cannot be used to override the express eligibility conditions framed by the competent [2026:JHHC:21802] 15 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases authority. In other words, equitable maxims cannot be stretched to amount eligibility regime. 11. It is also a settled principle of law that there cannot be relief without challenging the policy itself. In this case, the petitioners did not challenge the revised age limit, validity or constitutionality. Consequently, the request effectively became a plea of individualized exemption; something which the courts generally ought not grant in recruitment matters and the prayer of the petitioners, if, is allowed, hence, that will amount to creating an impermissible special clause through judicial direction. “ 16. Now coming to the facts of the case; so far as the W.P.(S) No. 4463 of 2026 is concerned, the concerned Rules being the Jharkhand Financial Subordinate Auditors (Appointment, Promotion and other Services condition) Rules, 2024, Rule-6(ii) of which prescribes the cut- off date to be the 1st August of the requisition year. The undisputed fact remains that the requisition year for the Advertisement No. 01 of 2026 is 2025. So, the cut-off date has been fixed in terms of Rule-6(ii) of the Jharkhand Financial Subordinate Auditors (Appointment, Promotion and other Services condition) Rules, 2024. The said rule is not under challenge. There is no pleading or contention of mala fide in respect of delay in issuing the advertisement. 17. So far as W.P.(S) No. 4912 of 2026 and W.P.(S) No. 4819 of 2026 are concerned, there is also no pleading of any mala fide in connection of delay in issuing the advertisement. 18. So far as the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay Kumar & Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSB) & Another (supra) is concerned, assuming [2026:JHHC:21802] 16 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases that the same was not the order made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in exercising its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution of India; the same proceeded on facts different from the facts of the case. In that case, the recruitment process was set in motion but due to several litigations, it could not be completed at an early date and in the earlier recruitment process, especially the petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India were considered for appointment out of 61,278 candidates whereas others were excluded; which gave rise to the litigation but such is not the fact in these cases. In those peculiar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case allowed the petitioner to participate in the selection process. Similarly, the facts of the case of Dharmendra Kumar Barnwal & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) were entirely different. The same was passed considering the continuous mandamus of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Others (supra) and also the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic which is not a fact of these cases. 19. So far as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others (supra) is concerned, the same was held to be per incuriam by a subsequent Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Mishra vs. State of Jharkhand & Others (supra). [2026:JHHC:21802] 17 W.P.(S) No.4463 of 2026 & analogous cases 20. Under such circumstances, keeping in view the settled principle of law that normally no mandamus is issued directing the respondents to grant a relaxation unless a very clear case of discrimination or manifest arbitrariness is made out, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer of the petitioners made in these Writ Petitions (Service) in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions (Service), being without any merit, are dismissed. 22. In view of dismissal of these Writ Petitions (Service), pending interlocutory application No.9166 of 2026 of W.P.(S) No.4819 of 2026 stands disposed of being infructuous. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of July, 2026 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 29/07/2026