Mahavir Das Vs Home Department

¶1

2025:JHHC:32889

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P. (S) No. 6900 of 2013

¶4

Mahavir Das, son of Shri Sonaram Das, resident of VillageDhawachita, P.O. & P.S.- Rajganj, District- Dhanbad.

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police), having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, town and District-Ranchi.

¶7

The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi having office at Police Headquarter, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and DistrictRanchi.

¶8

The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) having office at Police Headquarter, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Town and DistrictRanchi.

¶9

Sonu Kumar Chaudhary, son of not known to the petitioner having Roll No.-60213031

¶10

Awadhesh Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner having Roll No.-30208126

¶11

Vikrant Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner having Roll No.-30308731

¶12

Ravindra Kumar, son of not known to the petitioner having Roll No.-30308956

¶13

Seema Kumari, daughter of not known to the petitioner, having Roll No. 10102322

¶14

Vikash Paswan, son of not known to the petitioner having Roll No.-50110796

¶15

Prayag Das, son of not known to the petitioner having Roll No.50110870

¶16

Navin Kumar Rajak son of not known to the petitioner having Roll No.-10202945

¶17

Shambhu Sharan Das, son of not known to the petitioner having Roll No.-50110988.

¶18

Sachin Kumar Das, son of not known to the petitioner having Roll No.60112382

¶19

Respondents No.-4 to 13 through the Secretary/Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, having office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.

¶20

..... Respondents

¶21

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶22

¶23

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Pradyot Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sudhir Kumar Roy, Advocate Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, Advocate

¶24

Mr. Ujjwal Jaipuriar, Advocate

¶25

1

¶26

2025:JHHC:32889

¶27

16/Dated:-03.11.2025

¶28

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the

¶30

petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs:

¶31

(i) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Company Commander or any other post pursuant to advertisement no. 01/2008 issued by the concerned respondent inasmuch as the petitioner has obtained 147 marks and the last candidate, who has been selected on the post of Company Commander under the Scheduled Caste category to which the petitioner belongs, has obtained only 147 marks.

¶32

(ii) To hold and declare that the candidates, namely, private respondents no. 4 to 13 are not the permanent residents of the State of Jharkhand and as such they are not entitled for the benefit of reservation.

¶33

(iii) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.

¶34

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was published being Advertisement No. 01/2008 for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Sergeant and Company Commander. He further contended that the cut-off marks for appointment under the heading of Sub-Inspector of Police was 147 for SC Category and he himself secured 147. However, he fairly submits that the entire examination process is over and the private respondents are working in the respective posts.

¶35

4. From record, it appears that the writ application was filed way-back in November, 2013 but for some reason or the other, the case was not heard and decided and after a lapse of 13 years of appointment of private respondents and/or any other person, this Court cannot remove them even admitting the contention of the petitioner; accordingly, only due to the delay, no

¶36

2

¶37

2025:JHHC:32889

¶38

relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The question of law raised in this writ application shall remain open to be decided in other matters.

¶39

5. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands

¶40

disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.

¶41

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶42

NOVEMBER 3, 2025 vikas/uploaded 14/11/2025

¶43

3

Mahavir Das v. Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahavir Das v. Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Ram Krishna Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bharat Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Runjay Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Baba Baidyanath Medical Trust, through Its Authorized Representative Pankaj Kumar, Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Health

Sunil Kumar Sultania Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary Road Construction Department