RANCHI, India, June 9 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on May 7:

1. These appeals have been filed challenging the common order/judgment dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions (led by W.P.(S) No. 3151 of 2018) filed by the respective writ petitioners/appellants whereby the decision of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC)/Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) treating the candidature of the writ petitioners/appellants under general category, has not been interfered on the ground that they failed to adhere to the conditions as stipulated in the respective advertisements and consequently their writ petitions have been dismissed.

2. Initially, the present batch of Letters Patent Appeals as well as other Letters Patent Appeals were placed before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and vide order dated 02.03.2023, the Bench observed that in an almost similar fact-situation, there were conflicting views of different Division Benches of this court as in some cases, the ratio laid down in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 had been followed, whereas in some other cases, it had been distinguished/not relied upon. The Bench thereafter referred the said cases to the larger Bench for determination of the following issues: -

A. Whether "Ram Kumar Gijroya" must be applied in every case irrespective of the facts of the case, provided the caste certificate is produced at the time of verification of the documents?

B. Whether Clause 9(gha) in the Advertisement No. 2 of 2016 and a similar stipulation in the other advertisements run contrary to the Constitutional mandate under Articles 14, 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India?

C. Whether providing a condition in the advertisement that the caste certificate in the proper format should be in possession of the candidate on the last date for making the application failing which his/her candidature shall be considered under unreserved category is an exercise of excessive delegation of power and/or beyond the powers conferred upon the Commission?

3. Subsequently, L.P.A. No. 50 of 2020 was de-tagged and L.P.A. No. 118 of 2020 was disposed of by passing a separate order. Thereafter, the remaining cases (i.e., the present batch of appeals) were placed before the Full Bench of this Court and the said Bench answered the issues referred to it vide order dated 15.09.2025 passed in the case of Dr. Nutan Indwar @ Nutan Indwar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Jhar. 3189 directing that the present batch of appeals be placed before the appropriate Bench for deciding the same on merit keeping in view the observation made by the said Bench on the issues referred to it. Pursuant to the said direction, these appeals have been placed before this Court.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d3fNhuJok%2Bc0GPanO1tXdFKjhmBnsRSc1T7t47WByDpI&caseno=LPA/266/2020&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010192962020&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.