- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

C.M.P No.515 of 2022

----

Srikant Ram, aged about 25 years, son of Sujadhar Ram,

resident of village Ghat Surniya, P.O-A.D. Maheshpur & P.S.

Pathargama, District-Godda, Jharkhand.

…

…. Petitioner/Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand through the Director General of

Police, Jharkhand, Police Headquarter, HEC, P.O. Dhurwa,

P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi;

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed

Police (Karmik) having its office at Forest Officers’ Colony,

P.O. and P.S.- Doranda, District-Ranchi.

3. The Superintendent of Police (S.P.), Deoghar, P.O., P.S. &

District-Deoghar, Jharkhand.

4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Service Commission, Kali

Nagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum,

District-Ranchi.

5.The Accountants Office of Superintendent of Police,

Deoghar, P.O., P.S and District-Deoghar, Jharkhand.

6.The Director General of Police, DPRD building, HEC

Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand.

…

… Respondents

-------

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

------

For the Appellants

: Ms. Aanya, Advocate

For the Resp. State : Mr. P.C. Sinha, A.C. to G.A.-III

For the Resp. JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate

Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate

--------

ORAL JUDGMENT

Order No. 04 : Dated 1^st November, 2023

1.

The instant petition has been filed in terms of the

order/observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court dated

11.07.2022 in S.L.P. No.9467-9472 of 2022 whereby and

whereunder the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to

make following observations, for ready reference the same is

being referred hereunder as :-

- 2 -

“We have heard learned senior counsel for

the petitioner at a considerable length and perused

the relevant record with his able assistance.

We, however, do not find any ground to

interfere

with

the

impugned

orders

dated

13.12.2021,

passed

by

the

High

Court

of

Jharkhand at Ranchi in the present petition and/or

the Interlocutory Order dated 11.08.2017 passed by

the Single Judge of the High Court.

However, at this stage, Mr. Sanjay Parikh,

learned counsel for the petitioners, points out that

services of some of the candidates, who were found

medically fit by the Appellate/ Apex Medical Board

have also been dispensed with. We find that no

such argument was raised before the High Court.

Be that as it may, we grant liberty to such

candidates to, firstly, approach the Division Bench

of the High Court for recall/review of the Orders

terminating their services, and if they don’t succeed

in getting the desired relief, they shall be at liberty

to approach this Court. Their claim shall be

considered independently without being influenced

by the impugned order(s).

With these observations, the Special Leave

Petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.”

2.

Ms. Aanya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

has submitted by making reference of the statement made by

the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission as under

paragraph-16 of the counter affidavit wherein the writ

petitioner although has been declared to be medically fit but

even then he has not been appointed.

- 3 -

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further

submitted that even accepting the order passed by the

learned Single Judge, affirmed by Coordinate Division Bench

of this Court in L.P.A. No.318 of 2020 since the appellant has

been declared to be medically fit then the writ petitioner

ought to have been appointed on the ground that he has been

declared to be medically fit since, that was the spirit of the

order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4.

While on the other hand, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned

counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, which has been impleaded as party by this

Court vide