Jharkhand High Court
Mulnivasi Sangh Through Birendra Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:23218-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 3796 of 2024
MULNIVASI SANGH through Birendra Kumar, son of Sri Sita Ram,
aged about 48 years, State Secretary General. Mulnivasi Sangh, At -
Qtr No. 2568, Street - 33, Near Rai Chowk, Sector 8C, PO & PS -
Sector - 8C, District - Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand
... ... ... ... ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. -
Dhurwa, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Department of School Education Literacy, having
office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary,
having office at - Kalinagar, Chai Bagan, P.O. and P.S. Namkum,
District Ranchi.
4. Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) through its Superintendent of Police,
Government of Jharkhand having office at F-49, Kanke Road
Morabadi, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi.
5. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through its Director,
having office at 6th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, P.O. & P.S.
Lodhi Road, District New Delhi 110003.
6. National Cyber Forensic Laboratory (NCFL), a unit of Ministry of
Home Affair, Government of India, having office at Sector 16-C,
Dwarka, P.O. & P.S. Delhi. Dwarka, District-New.
7. The Director, Satwat Infosol Privet limited, 23/11, 3rd Floor, Nibav
Buildings, Anandha Bhavan, Lattice Brg Road, Near Adyar,
Padmanabha Nagar, Post & PS Adyar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
600020 ... ... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ravi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
---------
07/Dated: 11.08.2025
1. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs:-
(i) For directing upon the respondents to inquire/investigate
into the recruitment process conducted by Jharkhand
2025:JHHC:23218-DB
Staff Selection Commission (in short "JSSC") relating to
Advertisement No. 02/2023 (Regular Vacancy) and
Advertisement No. 03/2023 (Backlog Vacancy) being
Post-Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive
Examination- 2023 by any independent investigating
agency/authority as it may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of this case.
(ii) In alternative, the State Government be directed to
constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to inquire
the entire recruitment process especially the role of
examination conducting agency in the alleged
irregularities and use of unfair means during the said
examination process with the support and help of
National Cyber Forensic Laboratory (NCFL), New Delhi
(respondent no. 6).
(iii) To direct the respondents in particular respondent no. 6
(National Cyber Forensic Laboratory) to inquire into the
issue with respect to jumbling/change of the options in
the response key of the petitioners pursuant to
Advertisement No. 02/2023 for the appointment on the
post of Post-Graduate Trained Teachers as the JSSC
without having any such rule, has changed/jumbled the
options marked by the petitioners in their response key.
2. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand would submit that in
view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of Bholanath Mukherjee Vs. R.K. Mission Vivekanand
Century College, 2011(5) SCC 464, and Dr. Duryodhan Sahu
and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, (1998) 7
2025:JHHC:23218-DB
SCC 273, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service
matter.
3. This petition in the nature of public interest is not maintainable,
reason being that:
(i) No public interest litigation can be filed in a case
pertaining to selection of candidates.
(ii) If at all anyone is aggrieved, it is the candidate who can
always approach this Court or take recourse to other
remedy, as the case may be.
(iii) No relief has been claimed by the petitioner for upliftment
of the society which is itself a ground for not entertaining
this petition.
(iv) Lastly and more importantly, the petition is bereft of any
ground and has been filed simply in order to get publicity
and the same is in the nature of proxy litigation .
4. For all the reasons stated above, we see no reason to entertain
this petition and the same is dismissed.
5. Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
AFR (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sharda/MM/
Cp.02
