RANCHI, India, March 4 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 3:
1. Heard the parties.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that due to inadvertence, the petitioner in the application form had declared herself as a BCII candidate whereas the petitioner, in fact is a BC-I candidate. Thus, she claims that she should be considered as a BC-I candidate and accordingly she should be appointed.
3. During course of argument, on the last date, it was submitted that the petitioner has obtained 328 marks and the private respondent who has been appointed, has obtained 350 marks. The private respondent is also in BC-I category.
4. Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC submits that there are six more candidates who had obtained more marks than the petitioner in BC-I category but lesser marks than the respondent No.5 but they have not been selected.
5. Communication dated 29.01.2026, contained in Memo No.324 which has been handed over to this Court by Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, learned counsel for the JPSC, be kept on record.
6. Thus, from the submissions, it is clear that even if for the sake of argument, the petitioner's category is shifted to BC-I, there are already six meritorious candidates in that category who have not been selected, thus, the petitioner cannot get any preference over those candidates who have not been selected and are more meritorious than her. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
