2026:JHHC:24589-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 457 of 2026 Raju Kumar Singh, aged about 41 years, S/o Suresh Singh, R/o Village-Sarna, P.O. Sarna, P.S. Shahpur, District-Bhojpur (Bihar). ... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, 834002. 3. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, 834004. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Santhal Pargana Region, having office at Dumka, P.O., P.S. Dumka, District Dumka, Jharkhand. 5. Superintendent of Police, Sahebganj, having office at Sahebganj, P.O., P.S. Sahebganj, District Sahebganj, Jharkhand. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Shubham Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I. --------- 02/Dated: 17.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shubham Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aditya Kumar, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I for the respondents. 2. This appeal challenges learned Single Judge’s order dated 10.06.2026 dismissing appellant’s W.P. (S) No. 2668 of 2024. The appellant claims appointment and posting to the post of Constable on the ground that he was declared 2026:JHHC:24589-DB successful in the recruitment process of the year 2004- 2005. 3. This petition was instituted in 2024 after almost two decades and there is no explanation or in any event cogent explanation for the inordinate delay and the laches involved. The learned Single Judge has noted that the appellant had in fact filed a writ petition, W.P. (S) No.3778 of 2019 for seeking the same relief. Admittedly, this petition was dismissed. No liberty was granted for filing any fresh petition on the same cause of action. At least, none was shown to the learned Single Judge or to us in this appeal. 4. Mr Subham Gautam submitted that the reason which was stated in the counter affidavit to the 2019 petition was not challenged in the said petition. He submitted that the appellant was unaware of this reason at that time. He further submitted that in this petition, that reason has been assailed. 5. The above submission cannot be accepted. Based upon the above submission or explanation the inordinate delay and laches cannot be explained. The 2019 petition was disposed of on 23.11.2022. The counter affidavit in the said petition must have been filed much earlier. This petition has been filed only in 2024. Admittedly, as noted above, no 2026:JHHC:24589-DB liberty was granted when disposing of the 2019 petition. Besides, nothing prevented the petitioner from amending that very petition to challenge the reason set out in the counter affidavit. 6. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting W.P. (S) No. 2668 of 2024. There are no errors in the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No costs. 7. Interlocutory applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 17.08.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 20.08.2026