High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 01 JH CK 1980

Amit Kumar Sinha, son of Akhileshwar Prasad Sinha vs State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 29 January 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ananda Sen, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 235 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 316 words

Ananda Sen, J

1.

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents.

2.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned Office Order No.268/RIMS, Ranchi, dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), whereby the Advertisement pursuant to which total 118 candidates including the petitioners were selected, has been cancelled.

3.

Admittedly the petitioners applied for Class-IV posts in RIMS pursuant to Advertisement being Advertisement No.2292 dated 20.05.2022 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). As per clause- 5 (ii) of the said Advertisement, a criteria was fixed that "apart from the other essential qualification, candidates must have passed Matriculation / 10th Class from a recognized Educational Institution located in the State of Jharkhand".

4.

The Rule containing eligibility clause was challenged in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3894 of 2021 (Ramesh Hansda & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and other analogues cases. A Division Bench of this Court struck down the said Rule which contains eligibility criteria, declaring the same as arbitrary. Pursuant thereto, vide impugned Office Order No.268/RIMS, Ranchi, dated 19.03.2024, the Advertisement which was published by RIMS, was recalled. The said impugned Office Order has been challenged by the petitioners.

5.

Admittedly, the petitioners were not appointed nor they had joined the post, prior to the Advertisement was withdrawn.

6.

The ground for withdrawing the Advertisement is the order of this Court which struck down the said Rule which contains eligibility criteria, which mandated that a person having completed Matriculation from any institution within the State will only be made eligible for appointment.

7.

Considering the fact that the Rule which contains eligibility criteria has been struck down, the respondents were well within their jurisdiction to recall the Advertisement. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, as I find no illegality by the respondents in withdrawing the Advertisement.

8.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.