IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (S) No. 7511 of 2025

Amit Kumar Roy, Age about 45 years, S/O late Baijnath Pandey, Vill Lakhanpur Post Lakhanpur PS Mohanpur Lakhaipur, Fatehpur, Gaya,

Bihar, PIN 824232. ... ... ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of

Jharkhand, first floor, project building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa Ranchi.

… … ... Respondent

---------

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

---------

For the Petitioner: Ms. Nalini Jha, Advocate

For the State: Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, A.C. to S.C.(Mines)-III

For the JPSC: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate

Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate

Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate

---------

04/Dated: 07.01.2026

1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following

substantive relief:-

“a. For issuance of an writ/ writ(s), order/order(s), direction/ direction(s), commanding upon in the nature of of the mandamus the respondents for altering of the process of selection for post of Deputy Collector through Limited Examination, Jharkhand Service Code holding the group Kha Post only laid down in the advertisement number 11/2018 dated 25.09.2018 pertaining to the

recruitment of the Deputy Collector in the state of Jharkhand.

b. For issuance of a further writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions, commanding upon the Respondents to amend the part of Rule 17(ka)(ii) of Jharkhand Administrative Services Rules, 2015, whereby the government servants serving on Non gazetted sub-ordinate post as defined in Rule 30 Appendix 5 of the Jharkhand Service Code holding the Group Kha Post have only

been made eligible to participate in the process of selection.

2. When the case came up for consideration on 06.01.2026, the Court

passed the following orders:

“1. Learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions led by W.P.(S) No. 790 of 2019 [Chandan Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others]. He has also placed a copy of the said judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to go through the same.

3. List this case on 07.01.2026”

3. We have gone through the judgment rendered by this Court in Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Jharkhand and others [W.P(S) No. 790 of 2019 and analogous cases) and find that the advertisement impugned herein in fact has been issued in compliance to the orders passed in case of Chandan Kumar (supra) and therefore, in substance the petitioner actually seeks to challenge the judgment that was passed in the case of Chandan Kumar (supra) which is not permissible. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved then the only remedy available to him was to have assailed the judgment passed in the case of Chandan Kumar (supra) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not by way of the instant writ petition.

4. That apart even the issues raised in this petition are squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Chandan Kumar’s case (supra) wherein not only the provisions contained in Clause 17 (Ka)(ii) of the Jharkhand Administrative Services Rules, 2015 but also the Rule 30 along with Appendix 5 of the Jharkhand Service Code was considered and it is only thereafter that the petitions were disposed of with the observations made in para-36 and 37 of the judgment which reads as under:-

“36. The petitioners have made emphasis on their argument that there is no classification of Category-III posts in Rule 30 of the Jharkhand Service Code but the provision of Rule 30 along with Appendix-5 has been inserted, therefore, the said rule cannot be said to be valid, since by virtue of insertion therein, the writ petitioners, who are holding category-III posts, they are also eligible.

But the question would be that when the Government has come out with a resolution on 27.08.2010 classifying the posts, then what would be the effect