RANCHI, India, May 18 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 16:

1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma with Mr. Ramchander Sahu, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, learned A.C. to A.A.G. III for the State.

2. At the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we take up this appeal for final disposal.

3. This appeal is directed against the learned Single Judge's order dated 10th November 2025 dismissing the petitioner's W.P. (S) No.1520 of 2017 on the ground that the petitioner's case was similar to that of the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 2641 of 2016, and since the said petition was already dismissed, no relief could be granted to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that there was no significant similarity between the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 2641 of 2016 and the present petitioner/appellant. He pointed out that although the petitioner/appellant had engaged an Advocate to appear on her behalf in W.P. (S) No. 1520 of 2017, the Advocate could not appear on the date the order dated 10.11.2025 was passed, dismissing the said writ petition. As such, the petitioner's contention is that her case, being not similar to that of the petitioners in W.P. (S) No.2641 of 2016, could not be presented before the Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant now pointed out some of the differences in the appellant's case and submitted that the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 be set aside and an opportunity be granted to the appellant/petitioner to present her case before the learned Single Judge.

6. In this case, we note that the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 2641 of 2016 had worked for only two years and, on the basis of such work, sought the regularisation of their services.

7. In contrast, and at least prima facie, the records show that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Grade 'A' Nurse vide Memo No.1338 dated 13.11.2003 pursuant to her application in response to the advertisement dated 30.10.2003.

8. After that, the petitioner continued to request regular appointments. In the meantime, the petitioner's services were discontinued, a discontinuance that the petitioner challenged before the Court. Such challenges partly succeeded.

9. Finally, regarding the resolution dated 11.02.2014, the Government introduced a scheme for the regularisation of the services of contractual employees who had put in more than five years of service. For such regularisation, about 95 posts of Grade 'A' Nurses were sanctioned.

10. The record prima facie discloses that the petitioner's case was duly considered, and the petitioner has claimed that she was at Serial No.80 of the select-list. However, for no apparent reason, an appointment was not issued to the petitioner. This forced the petitioner to once again approach the Court seeking appropriate relief.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xxEINPY%2Bx6bwkPeO0P9ToTzHz3dObSbzo2VV4n5kmZB1&caseno=LPA/28/2026&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010437042025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.