SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 4144

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
SWETA SINHA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
WPC 7300 / 2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.7300 of 2025 ------

Sweta Sinha, W/o Manish Kumar Sinha, R/o State Bank of India, Makatpur, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, Jharkhand-815301.

… … Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand.

2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

3. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

4. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.

Jagannathpur, District Ranchi.

5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

6. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

7. The Joint Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S.

Namkum, District Ranchi.

8. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O.

& P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

… … Respondents ------

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

------

For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate Mr. Aashutosh Prasad Deo, Advocate Mrs. Binita Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate ------

02/ 11.12.2025 Heard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsels appearing on behalf of the JSSC.

2. The issue involved and sought to be raised in this writ petition has already been decided by Hon’ble Coordinate Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 582 of 2023 (Mina Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others along with Analogous Cases) vide order dated 01.09.2025, wherein following directions have been given, which are quoted herein below:-

“51. Accordingly, to maintain institutional integrity and ensure an impartial enquiry a one-man commission headed by a former judge of this Court is being constituted. Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak (Retd.) is appointed as a One-Man Fact- Finding Commission to look into the matter of irregularities and illegalities, if any, committed in the matter of preparation and publication of the revised merit list pursuant to the judgment and orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters referred to above. The One-Man Fact-Finding Commission is requested to make an enquiry and report, inter alia, on the following issues:

I. Whether the respondent JSSC has at all prepared the revised merit list and other merit lists as per the judgment and orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court before making appointments after the judgment dated

02.08.2022?

II. Who are and how many numbers of ‘already appointed and protected candidates’ having lesser marks than the marks obtained by the petitioners have been accommodated and whether their actual dates of appointment and joining is prior to and as per the judgment dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court or not ?

III. Who are and how many numbers of ‘original writ petitioners’ as indicated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court having lesser marks than the petitioners in their respective subjects have been appointed by the respondents and whether they deserve to be included in the said category ?

IV. Whether the vacancies indicated to be occupied by the absentees or non-joining candidates in the year 2019 which is large in number and not surrendered have been actually filled up by the respondents by less meritorious candidates?

V. Further it shall also be required to be verified as to, whether the candidates whose candidature was rejected on valid reasons have been l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top