2026:JHHC:9622 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 1086 of 2021 ---------- Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Prasad Sharma, aged about 33 years, S/o. Govind Kumar Sharma, R/o. Village Laiyo, P.O. Laiyo, P.S. Mandu, Dist. Ramgarh, Jharkhand. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, Police Headquarter, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Government of Jharkhand, Police Headquarter, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Inspector General of Special Task Force (J.J.), Government of Jharkhand, Tendargram, P.O. Ratu, P.S. Kanke, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Special Task Force (J.J.), Government of Jharkhand, Tendargram, P.O. Ratu, P.S. Kanke, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 6. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Chaibagan, Kalinagar, Namkom, Ranchi, P.O. Namkom, P.S. Namkom, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. ………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the State : Ms. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-I For the JSSC : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate ---------- 09/ 06.04.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside letter dated 26.02.2018, issued by the 6th respondent, whereby a decision has been taken to cancel the candidature of the petitioner pursuant to Jharkhand Police Sub-Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was fully entitled to be selected to the post of Sub-Inspector after qualifying each and every stage of the examination issuance pursuance to Advt. No. 09/2017. 2026:JHHC:9622 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court towards the impugned order at Annexure-11, wherein the only ground which was taken is that the petitioner was not entitled in view of Clause-5 of the Jharkhand State Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Appointment Rules (Recruitment Method), 2016 and Clause-4 of the Advertisement. 4. He further draws attention towards a Certificate which is at page-44, and part of Annexure-2, and submits that he was duly granted permission to appear in the limited examination. Accordingly, the action of the respondents for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for promotion is non est in the eyes of law. 5. In response to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondent- JSSC straightway draws attention of the Court towards the advertisement, which is annexed as Annexure-1 and directly indicated Clause-4 and submits that only the Personnels of District General Police were entitled to appear in the examination. 6. He further referred to the Rules wherein at Clause-5, the same condition is indicated. For brevity, Clause-4 of the Advertisement and also Clause-5 of the Jharkhand State Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Appointment Rules (Recruitment Method), 2016 are extracted herein below: “4. अर्हता- जिला /इकाई के सामान्य पुललस, हवलदार तथा सहायक अवर निरीक्षक जिन्होंिे अपिे मूल संवर्ग / पद पर आवेदि समर्पगत करिे की अंनतम नतथथ तकः- (i) न्यूितम पााँच वर्षों की सेवा (बुनियादी प्रलिक्षण अवथि सहहत) पूणग कर ली हो, (ii) सेवा अवथि में ककसी प्रकार की टूट िहीं हो, (iii) ककसी प्रकार का वृहत दण्ड संसूथचत िहीं ककया र्या हो तथा उिके र्वरूद्ि ककसी प्रकार की र्वभार्ीय कायगवाही लंबबत ि हो, आरोप पत्र र्हित ि हो एवं न्यानयक मामले लंबबत ि हो, (iv) सेवा पुजततका में र्पछले पााँच वर्षों के भीतर कोई प्रनतकु ल अभ्युजतत दिग िहीं की र्ई हो, 2026:JHHC:9622 3 5. योग्यताएँ / अर्हताएँ - पुललस अवर निरीक्षक के नििागररत पदों पर सीलमत र्वभार्ीय प्रनतयोथर्ता परीक्षा के माध्यम से भती हेतु अवर निरीक्षक सवंर्ग से िीचे की पंजतत के निम्िललखित कोहट के पुललसकमी योग्य पात्र होंर्े, बिते कक वे अपेक्षक्षत योग्यता / अहगत्ता िारण करते हो। (i) जिला / इकाई के सामान्य पुललस (ii) जिला / इकाई के हवलदार िोट - झा०स०पु०/ आई०आर०बी० एस०आई०एस०एफ० / एस०आई०आर०बी० के कमी सीलमत प्रनतयोथर्ता परीक्षा में सजम्मललत होिे के पात्र िहीं होंर्े।” 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent- JSSC that the petitioner belongs to Jharkhand Jaguar (STF), Ranchi, at the time of filling-up the application. This fact is not been controverted by the petitioner; rather, there is a specific assertion in the writ application that the petitioner while he was posted in Jharkhand Jaguar (STF), Ranchi, he has been granted permission to participate in the limited competitive examination. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and looking to the prayer, the only issue which is to be decided by this Court is whether any person even after taking permission, who is otherwise not competent to come under Clause-4 of the Advertisement and Clause-5 of the Rules, 2016, can be given promotion ? 9. Clause-4 of the Advertisement and Clause-5 of the Rules have already been extracted hereinabove wherein, it has been categorically indicated that it is only for those candidates who are from the Jharkhand General Police. Further, in the note it is specifically stated that the Police Personnels coming under Jharkhand Armed Police, I.R.B, S.I.S.F., S.I.R.B. are not entitled to participate in the said examination. 10. From conjoint reading of Clause-4 of the Advertisement and Clause-5 of the Rules, 2016, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the petitioner at the time of filling-up the application was not eligible to participate, even after permission, inasmuch as, 2026:JHHC:9622 4 at the relevant time he was serving under Jharkhand Jaguar (STF), Ranchi, and the limited competitive exam was only for those Police Personnels, who were in Jharkhand General Police/ Hawaldar and A.S.I. and none others were eligible to participate in the examination. 11. As a matter of fact, the first part of Clause-4 has been further elaborated in the notes wherein the particular group of police personnels were debarred from taking participation. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions coupled with the facts of the case, no interference can be made with the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. However, no cost. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 6th April, 2026 Kunal/- NAFR/AFR Uploaded on 16.04.2026