Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:1087) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. C. No. 1807 of 2018 --- Ram Kumar Singh … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department, of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi 3. The Joint Director, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi 4. The Regional Director, South Chhotanagpur Region, Ranchi Animal Husbandry Department, Kanke, Ranchi 5. The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Palamau, District Medninagar 6. The District Animal Husbandry Officer, Palamau, District Medninagar … … Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ayush Deb, AC to G.P. VI --- 8/15.01.2026 Heard Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AC to G.P. VI, appearing for the State. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Technical Assistant in the respondent department considering the fact that the petitioner has not been given any weightage or preference in the selection process and the respondent department has very wrongfully appointed many similarly situated persons having obtained less than 77 marks by way of giving them preference and weightage over and above the other persons. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on a sanctioned and vacant post of Technical Assistant, but after putting in 8-10 years of service, his services were terminated which was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 2094 of 1998 (R). The petitioner continued to work. Pursuant to the -2- advertisement dated 28.12.2004, the petitioner had applied for the post of Technical Assistant, but it is the grievance of the petitioner that due to weightage with respect to marks and other criteria were not extended to the petitioner which however were extended to the other candidates who were subsequently appointed, petitioner was not appointed. It has been submitted that necessary relaxation was not given to the petitioner despite the recommendation of the committee constituted subsequent to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to consider the respective claims on a priority basis. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner did not approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no relaxation was extended to him and it would suffice that this court direct that in case of any vacancy, the relaxation should be appropriately given to the petitioner. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is aged about 57- 58 years at the present moment, no such direction can be passed. Consequently, this writ application stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) R. Shekhar Cp 3