[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Singh on 19 January, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A No. 573 of 2023
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Appellants
Versus
Subodh Kumar Singh ... ... Respondent
With
L.P.A No. 577 of 2023
The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Ors.
... ... Appellants
Versus
Neeta Singh & Ors. ... ... Respondents
With
L.P.A No. 160 of 2025
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of
Home, Ranchi & Ors. ... ... Appellants
Versus
Amit Kumar Pandey ... ... Respondent
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, Sr. SC-I
Mr. Abhijeet Anand, AC to Sr. SC-I
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate
-----
Order No. 12 Dated: 19.01.2026
I.A. No. 5969 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 573 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 5970 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 577 of 2023
With
I.A. No. 11817 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 160 of 2025
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the
three interim applications in the three L.P.As can be considered and
disposed of by a common order.
3. The interim applications seek condonation of delay of
295 days, 146 days and 436 days in instituting the respective
appeals against the common judgment and order dated 11.04.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. The delay of 436 days in instituting the third appeal
has been explained by the learned counsel for the applicants
pointing out that the certified copy of the judgment and order was
not annexed out of inadvertence. Upon realizing this mistake, the
certified copy was annexed, resulting the overall delay of 436 days.
5. In effect, learned counsel for the applicants submitted
that the reasons for the aforesaid delay in instituting the respective
appeals have been explained in the interim applications. It was
submitted that approvals were necessary before the L.P.As were
actually instituted and this involved consideration of the matters at
various levels.
6. The movement of files is explained in the interim
applications. The delay is not inordinate. The issue concerns
appointments in the police department i.e., A.S.I (Stenographers).
Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of all the facts and
circumstances, we are satisfied that the cause shown is sufficient.
7. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of the
above interim applications.
With
With
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are
satisfied that arguable issues arise particularly in the context of the
appellants' submissions that the recruitments rules had not
provided for any particular marking patterns for determination of
merit. Accordingly, the appellants contended before us that there
was nothing wrong in the selection committee evolving a fair and
reasonable criteria of awarding marks based on proficiency in
typing, stenography and computer knowledge. The appellants
contend that this was not a case of any change of rules after the
selection process had commenced or introducing marks for
computer knowledge, even though, the resolution had merely
prescribed award of marks for typing and stenography.
9. No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondents has
his own version. Still, we are satisfied that arguable case has been
made out by the appellants warranting the admission of these
appeals.
10. We accordingly admit these appeals. We stay the
directions issued in the order impugned before us.
11. Post these appeals for final disposal on 18.03.2026.
12. The learned counsel for the parties are requested to
prepare short synopsis of their arguments along with decisions, if
any, they seek to rely upon, so that, we can proceed with the final
hearing of these appeals on the appointed date.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
January 19, 2026
Manish/Ritesh
