2026:JHHC:2611 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.117 of 2021 ----- Manoj Kumar Pal, S/o Sri Arjun Pal, R/o Gram- Sudna, P.S. Daltonganj, District- Palamu, (Jharkhand). .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamu 3.The District Social Welfare Officer, Palamu, Palamu, P.O. and P.S. & District- Palamu (Jharkhand) 4.The Child Development Project Officer, Chainpur. Palamu, P.O. and P.S. Chainpur, District- Palamu (Jharkhand) … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG …...... 09/ 02.02.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner only confines his prayer to prayer No.1(iii) and he is relinquishing the other prayers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not claiming fresh appointment in terms of the Advertisement published in the district of Palamu i.e. Advertisement No.01/2010, which has already been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is his contention that his claim is independent of the said advertisement. 4. After hearing the parties, I find that it is the case of the petitioner that he was working on the daily wages since long and he is entitled to be regularized pursuant to the circular of the State. It is his case that the respondents have wrongly considered him for appointment pursued to Advertisement No.1 of 2010, which actually he is not claiming. It is his case that his not claiming fresh appointment, rather since he is working for nearly two decades, he prays that his services be regularized, considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the circular issued by the State from time to time, which covers the field of regularization of daily wages employees in the State. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that a decision would be taken, but the petitioner cannot seek any benefit from the Advertisement No. 01/2010 published by the District Administration of Palamau as the same has already been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court including its consequential action. 6. Considering the said submission, I direct the respondents to consider the case of regularization of the petitioner, independent of the Advertisement No. 01/2010 as per law, if the petitioner makes out his case for regularization. 7. I direct the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, who will consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per law within a period of eight weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 02nd February, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 06 /02/2026