Jharkhand High Court
Kumari Kalpana Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 25 March, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:9544
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4485 of 2023
-----
1.Kumari Kalpana Sinha, D/o Late Krishnanand Prasad
2.Pradeep Kumar Awadhya, S/o Ram Prakash Awadhya
3.Jitendra Kumar Singh, S/o Ramji Singh
4.Amrendra Kumar Singh, S/o Ram Niwas Singh
5.Satyendra Mani, S/o Amrendra Prasad Chourasia
6.Dinesh Kumar Dubey, S/o Mahendra Kumar Dubey
7.Dharmendra Singh, S/o Ramchet Singh
8.Saroj Kumar Saroj, S/o Ramlal Saroj
9.Yashwant Singh, S/o Subhash Singh ------ Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, School Education and
Literacy Department, having office at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi
2. The Chairman of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having office at
Kalinagar, Chai Bagan, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi
3.The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having
office at Kalinagar, Chai Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District- Ranchi,
------ Respondent(s)
......
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kr. Roy, Advocate
Mr. Gautam Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : AC to A.G.
For the Resp.-JSSC : Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate
.........
09 / 25.03.2025: Heard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC. All the parties have
accepted that this case is covered by L.P.A. No.143 of 2024.
2. The issue in this case is covered by the judgment delivered by
the Division Bench of this Court on 28.02.2025 in L.P.A. No.143 of 2024.
3. In this case, the petitioners' claim is that they have not received
the personal communication for counselling thus, they could not
appear in the counselling which resulted in their non-appointment.
4. The issue was considered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid
case and in paragraphs 35 and 36, the Hon'ble Division Bench held as
follows:-
"35. Admittedly, Clause 16(4)(ग)(viii) of the advertisement specifically
provided for furnishing of information regarding the examination only
through the website of the Commission. The appellants were fully aware
2025:JHHC:9544
of the same and they are also bound by the same. They cannot seek any
relaxation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement and cannot
find fault with the Commission for adhering to the said norms. When
opportunity for document verification was given at least three times to
each of the appellants as pointed out by the learned Single Judge, and it
was not availed by them because of their own negligence in not checking
the website of the Commission from time to time, they are not entitled to
any relief on the basis of sympathy.
36. Merely because some of the other successful candidates were informed
about the dates of document verification through an advertisement or
otherwise through email, parity cannot be sought as righty held by the
learned Single Judge. Only a person who has enforceable right can claim
parity with similarly situated persons but not otherwise."
5. The Letters Patent Appeal, which was filed claiming personal
communication and proper communication was set aside. I find that
this case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. This writ
petition is thus dismissed in terms of order passed in L.P.A. No.143 of
2024.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
R.S.
