Sneh Lata Tigga Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary

( 2026:JHHC:21714 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5207 of 2026

Sneh Lata Tigga aged about 34 years, daughter of Ranjan Tigga, Resident of Khorha Toli, Gali No. 2, Near Don Bosco Church, Kokar, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.- Sadar, Ranchi, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand through The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O.-P.S. Dhurwa, DistrictRanchi.

¶5

The Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, through The Secretary/Principal Secretary, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶6

The Director, Directorate of Secretary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman having its office at Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O./P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.

¶8

The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents

¶9

6. The Jharkhand University of Technology, its Registrar Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶10

... .... Performa Respondent

¶11

¶12

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶13

For the Petitioner For the JSSC	--- : Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
For the State	: Ms. Oishi Das, AC to AG
For the Resp. 6	: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate ---

¶14

02 /22.07.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶15

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶16

“ That through the instant writ application, petitioner prays before this Hon’ble Court for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner for her appointment on the post of Maadhyamik Aacharya, Artificial Intelligence and Coding/Cyber Security and Data Science/ Computer Science, pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2025 dated 10.06.2025 issued by respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, under the signature of respondent no. 5, taking into consideration the

¶17

( 2026:JHHC:21714 )

¶18

clarification with supporting documents submitted by petitioner well within prescribed time in reply to objection raised by respondent no. 5 vide letter no. 2195 dated 18.6.2026. AND

¶19

Further for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/ order (s)/ direction (s)/, commanding upon the respondents to call the petitioner for counseling which is scheduled to be held on 22.07.2026, as apparent from Press Release dated nill issued by respondent no. 3. AND

¶20

For any other appropriate relief(s)/ as Your Lordship may deem fir and proper in law and equity, under the facts and circumstances of the instant case for doing conscionable justice to petitioner.

¶21

Pending disposal of this writ petition, the respondents may be restrained from finalizing the appointment process without considering the candidature of petitioner or in alternate respondents may be directed to keep one post reserved for petitioner, which would be subject to final outcome of the instant writ petition.

¶22

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. 2/2025 dated 10.06.2025 and was called for counselling. However, an objection was raised by the respondent no. 5 on 18.06.2026 that the petitioner does not have the required qualification in terms of the Advertisement.

¶23

4. The learned counsel has referred to the provisional decree certificate and has submitted that the petitioner is holder of M.Tech. in Data Sciences from the Jharkhand University of Technology, Ranchi. The university has also issued a clarification that M. Tech. in Data Science is a relevant/equivalent to discipline to M. Tech. in Computer Sciences & Engineering (CSE)).

¶24

5. The learned counsel submits that the required qualification was M.E. or M. Tech (Computer Science/I.T.) from a recognized University/Institution with at least 50% marks for three different posts and the qualification of M.Tech. in Data Sciences is equivalent to M.E. or M.Tech. (Computer Science/I.T.).

¶25

6. The learned counsel submits that by virtue of Annexure-7 dated 18.06.2026 the petitioner was asked to give a clarification to which the petitioner duly responded, but as per Annexure-12, the result of the

¶26

2

¶27

( 2026:JHHC:21714 )

¶28

petitioner has been kept pending and a newspaper report has been published that the appointment letter is going to be issued shortly.

¶29

7. The learned counsel submits that it is unfair on the part of the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to keep the result pending with respect to some of the candidates and publish the result of others and thereby frustrate the participation of the petitioner in the selection process.

¶30

8. Although no counter affidavit has been filed but the learned counsel for the JSSC has submitted that the Master of Engineering or Master of Technology (computer science/I.T.) is not equivalent to Master of Technology in Data Sciences. It is further submitted that the University has no locus to decide the equivalence and further the University has not stated that it is equivalent, rather the University has stated that it is relevant/equivalent as well. He submits that of course no formal order with regard to the final outcome of the participation of the petitioner has been communicated so far. However, the objection has been communicated.

¶31

9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties it appears that on the one hand result of the petitioner has been kept pending consideration and on the other hand final selection list is likely to be published shortly. This court is of the considered view that the JSSC cannot act in such a manner. The petitioner has a right to know the ultimate outcome of her candidature.

¶32

10. In such circumstances, this court directs the respondent no. 5 to immediately communicate the final outcome of the participation of the petitioner in the selection process with regard to her candidature/qualification within a period of one week from today on the mail i.d. of the petitioner ([email protected].) which is already available with the respondents.

¶33

11. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶34

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶35

Dated: 22.07.2026 Uploaded on 23.07.2026 Binit/

¶36

3

Sneh Lata Tigga v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneh Lata Tigga v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tinku Das @ Tinku Kumar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

Nandan Kamar Alias Abhishek Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand through a.C.B.(Vigilance)

Vishal Sharma @ Vishal Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Das @ Pawan Kumar Das Vs State of Jharkhand

Rishikesh Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand