Dinesh Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 484 Jhar

                                     1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(S) No. 5896 of 2017
   1. Dinesh Soren, son of Sri Mangal Soren
   2. Robert Murmu, son of Sri Pandu Murmu
   3. Devilal Hembrom, son of Sri Kakhon Hembrom
   4. Brahmdeo Yadav, son of Sri Moti Yadav
   5. Sanni Kumar, son of Sri Kapildeo Yadav
   6. Suman Kumar, son of Sri Deo Nandan Choudhary
   7. Hema Kumari Tudu, daughter of Babulal Tudu
   8. Bandana Kumari, daughter of Sri Prithiwi Chandra Yadav
   9. Punam Kumari, daughter of Ganesh Rajak
   10. Anil Kumar, son of Sri Bishwanath Prasad
   11. Sunil Soren, son of Late Bablu Soren
   12. Alok Ranjan Verma, son of Sri Chandra Kishore Verma
   13. Krishna Nandan Kanhiya, son of Ram Nandan Das
   14. Md. Wajid Akram, son of Md. Akram Azam
   15. Santosh Kumar, son of Sri Kapildev Yadav
   16. Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, son of Rajendra Tiwari
   17. Ravishankar Choudhary, son of Sri Gulab Chand Choudhary

                                                  ...... Petitionera
                          Versus
   1.   The State of Jharkhand
   2.   The Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare
        Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
   3.   The Joint Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare
        Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
   4.   The Under Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare
        Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
   5.   Secretary, Personnel Administrative     Reforms and Rajbhasha
        Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi

                                                  ...... Respondents

                  ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, A.A.G.I

08/Dated: 02/02/2021 Heard, Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned counsel for the

respondent-State.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in

view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any

technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

Petitioners have preferred this writ petition for direction upon the

respondents to initiate a regular selection process after framing appropriate

recruitment rules. Further prayer has been made for age relaxation.

Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that due to laches on the part of respondents, the result for the examination of

Ayurvedic D. Pharma Course for the Session 2007-08-09 was published late

and that is why the petitioners are overage. He submits that the case of the

petitioners may kindly be considered .

Mrs. Darshana Poddar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits

that it is policy decision of the Government and in that view of the matter, the

Hon'ble High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not issue

any direction. She submits that the case of the petitioners is fit to be rejected in

view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in "Chandra

Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors." reported in 2018 SCC

Online Jhar 921.

In view of above facts and without entering into the merit of the

case, the writ petition is being disposed of with direction to the petitioners to

approach the authority concerned who will consider the case of the petitioners

and pass appropriate order.

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. I.A., if any,

stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-