Rita Kumari v. The State of Jharkhand

24.Prashant Kumar, S/o Sri Govinda Mahato, age about 31 years, R/o Kankani Basti, Bansjora, Sital Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Loyabad, Dhanbad.

25.Anand Kumar, S/o Ambika Yadav, age about 28 years, R/o Loyaba No. 07, Bansjora P.O. & P.S. Loyabad, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

26. Vikash Kumar Mahato, S/o Basudev Mahato, age about 26 years, R/o Kachhi Balihari, P.O. & P.S. Kusunda, Dhanbad,

27.Sanjeet Kumar Bauri, S/o Fakira Bauri, age about 24 years, R/o 199, Near Raksha Kali Mandir, Lodhna, P.O.&P.S. Tisra, Dhanbad.

28. Prasanjeet Kumar, S/o Gour Kumhar, age about 26 Years, R/o Near Kali Mandir, Madhuban Kumar, Basti, Lodna, P.O. & P.S. Tisra, Dhanbad.

29.Arbind Kumar Ray, S/o Raj Kishore Ray, age about 29 years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Baromurhi B, Polytechnic, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

30.Saroj Kumar Marandi, S/o Tarachand Marandi, age about 28 years, R/o Ranga Mati, Rangamatitola, Sidhatand, P.O. & P.S. Sindri, Baliyapur, Dhanbad.

31.Tuntun Kumar Yadav, S/o Krishan Yadav, age about 25 years, R/o House No. 99, Near Purana Hospital, P.O.&P.S. Jealgora No. 7, Majhiladi alias Jagidi, P.O. Jelgora P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad.

32.Ashish Kumar Yadav, S/o Manoj Yadav, age about 27 years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Police Line Gwala Para Hirapur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

33.Mantu Kumar, S/o Jitendra Singh, age about 27 years, R/o Near BCCL Canteen, Angarpathra, Akashkanali, Katrasgarh, P.O.& P.S. Katras, Dhanbad.

34.Sadik Mia, S/o Sarif Mia, age about 25 years, R/o Near Office Aream Sendra No. 3, Bansjora, P.O.& P.S. Bastakola, Loyabad, Dhanbad

35.Bhanu Pratap Srivastava, S/o Ashok Srivastav, age bout 25 years, R/o Near Hanuma Mandir, Teli Para, Hirapur, P.O.& P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

36. Akash Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Ramjanam Yadav, age about 27 Years, R/o Police Line Gwala Para, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

37. Navjeet Prasad Gupta, S/o Ram Pukar Prasad Gupta, age about 28 years, R/o Near Black Diamond Apartment, Baramuri, P.O B. Polytechnic, P.O. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

38.Suraj Kumar Mahato, S/o Late Mathura Mahato, age about 25 years, R/o South Balihari Basti, P.O.&P.S. Kusunda Putki, Dhanbad.

39.Nagendra Prajapati, S/o Vijay Shankar Prajapati, age about 24 years, R/o Bhowra No. 13, Bhowra Ground, P.O.&P.S. Sudandi, Dhanbad.

40.Ranjeet Kumar, S/o Atyendra Prasad, age about 24 years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Vikash Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Katras, Dhanbad.

41.Ashish Kumar Rawani, S/o Vishwanath Prasad Rawani, age about 31 years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Vikash Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Katras Road, Dhanbad.

42.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Birsen, Sharma, age about 26 years; R/o S.P. M College, Dumgarh, P.O. & P.S. Sindri, Dhanbad.

43.Rikesh Kumar, S/o Late Ram Jee Rajak, age about 28 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, DGMS Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

44.Rahul Kumar, S/o Rajendra Rawani, age about 27 years, R/o Gandhi Nagar Sabji Bagan, P.O.&P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

45.Raman Kumar Panda, S/o Sudhir Panda, age about 25 years, R/o Gate No. 2, Near CMRI, Krishna Nagar, Ward No. 25. P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

46.Rahul Panda, S/o Sudhir Panda, age about 24 years, R/o Gate No. 2, Near CMRI, Krishna Nagar, Ward No. 25, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

47.Deepak Kumar, S/o Bahadur Singh, age about 26 years, R/o Kumardhubi Nichu, Dhoura, Mahabir Stham, P.O.&P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad.

48.Chandan Ravidas, S/o Ganesh Ravidas, age about 25 years, R/o Baraee No. 1, Jharia Shisu, Balvidhlay, Kurmidi, P.O.&P.S.Kurmidi, Dhanbad.

49. Vishal Tiwari, S/o Gorakh Nath Tiwari, age about 27 years, R/o Barari No. 01 P.O.& P.S Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad.

50.Md. Amir Hussain, S/o Md Imamul Hussain, age about 24 years, R/o Thana More Near Daimand Club, P.O.&P.S. Jharia, Dhanbad.

51.Rohit Kumar Tanti, S/o Mahendra Prasad, age about 26 years, R/o Dumari No.3, Near Shiv Mandir, Kalmegha, P.O. & P.S. Jora pokhar, Dhanbad.

52.Shiv Kumar Mahato, S/o Dheran Mahto, age about 26 Years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Lower Dungri Basti, Kalmegha P.O. & P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad.

53.Suraj Rajwar, S/o Chhotelal Rajwar, age about 29 years, R/o No. 2 Thana Katra, Lakarka, P.O.&P.S. Katras, Dhanbad.

54.Dilip Kumar, S/o Shyam Sundar Mandal, age about 25 years, R/o Khumar Patti, P.O.& P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

55.Ganesh Kumar Gope, S/o Ravi Gope, age about 26 years, R/o Rajbari Road, Katras Bazar, Katras Bazar, P.O.& P.S. Katras, Dhanbad.

56.Ekramul Ansari, S/o Md. Abash Miah, age about 27 years, R/o Sri Nagar, Putki, Kusunda P.O.&P.S. Putki, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 23 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

57.Sunny Kumar Yadav, S/o Nandlal Yadav, age about 27 years, R/o Near Purana Petrol Pump, Godhar Hajara Basti, Kusunda, Kenduadih P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

58.Badal Gope, S/o Shyam Gope, age about 25 years, R/o Godhar No. 15, Kusunda, Kendua Dih, P.O.&P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

59. Alok Kumar Mishra, S/o Vinod Kumar Mishra, age about 27 years, R/o Quarter No. IM 105152 Sindri, Baliapur P.O.& P.S. Sindri, Dhanbad.

60. Yogendra Kumar, S/o Nageshwar Mahato, age about 28 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Gondudih, Kendua Dih, P.O. & P.S. Kusunda, Dhanbad.

61.Ram Raj Yadav, S/o Rajbali Yadav, age about 27 year, R/o Near Tata DAV School, Dumri no. 03, Kalmegha, P.O.& P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad.

62.Ravikant, S/o Bhagwan Singh, age about 33 years, R/o Co- operative Colony, Near Bharat Mata Kalyan Mandep, Jitpur, P.O. & P.S. Jora Pokhar Dhanbad.

63.Manmohan Kumar Yadav, S/o Kailash Yadav, age about 27 years, R/o Qrtr No. A/310, A Block Bhuli, P.O.&P.S. Bhuli, Dhanbad.

64.Mithu Hembram, S/o Rabilal Hembrom, age about 24 years, R/o Nag Nagar Bhelatand, P.O. & P.S. Barwadda, Dhanbad.

65.Ravindra Kumar Yadav, S/o Kamal Yadav, age about 23 years, R/o Jora Phatak, P.O.&P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

66.Nitish Kumar Paswan, S/o Bindheswar Paswan, age about 26 years, R/o New colony Bajrang Nagar, Near Mining School, Parasia, P.O.&P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

67. Akash Kumar Mahto, S/o Tulsi Mahto, age about 28 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Upar Dungri Basti, P.O.&P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 24 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

68. Vimal Kumar Mahato, S/o Gopal Mahato, age about 24 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Upar Dungri Basti, P.O.&P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad.

69.Dipchand Murmu, S/o Vakil Murmu, age about 24 years, R/o Poonag Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Barwada, Dhanbad.

70. Rupesh Kumar Singh, S/o Phuleshwar Singh, age about 29 years, R/o Thakur Kulhi Dhaiya, Bhawardaha P.O.& P.S. Naga Nagar, Dhanbad.

71.Ranjeet Kumar Thakur, S/o Mahaveer Thakur, age about 28 years, R/o Nilanchal Colony, P.O.& P.S. Saraidhela, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad.

72.Sonu Kumar, S/o Ram Padarath Singh, age about 27 years, R/o Bishunpur, P.O.&P.S. Bishanpura, Dhanbad.

73.Raushan Kumar, S/o Devendra Singh, age about 25 years, R/o Ward No. 20, P.O.&P.S. Bartand, Dhanbad.

74. Azad Choudhri, S/o Vikarm Choudhari, age about 25 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Jealgora No. 7, P.O. & P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad. ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.

3. The Director General of Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Police Headquarters, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.

4. The District Commandant, Home Guard, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 25 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dist.- Dhanbad. … Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 1531 of 2021

1. Pushpa Kumari, D/o Shiv Kumar Saw, age about 27 year, R/o Ekra, P.O. & P.S. Bansjora Loyabad, Dhanbad.

2. Laxmi Kumari, D/o Fagu Mahto, age about 24 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Bansjora Basti, P.O. & P.S. Bansjora Loyabad, Dhanbad.

3. Anita Kumari @ Anita Devi, W/o Prakash Chandra Mahto, age about 39 years, R/o House No. 135/49, Bank Colony, Kumhar Patti, Manaitand, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

4. Urmila Mahato, W/o Hiran Mahto, age about 33 years, R/o Upper Dungri Basti, Near Shiv Mandir, Kainregha, P.O. & P.S. Jorapokhar, Dhanbad.

5. Sanju Kumari, W/o Bablu Kumar Mahato, age about 27 years, R/o Bhuli Basti, Barwatola, Dharjori, P.O. Bhulinagar, P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad.

6. Sony Kumari, W/o Umesh Mahto, age about 26 years, R/o Bhuli Basti, Barwatola, Dharjori, P.O. Bhulinagar, P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad.

7. Dewanti Kumari, D/o Late Kali Charan Mahato, age about 24 years, Bhuli Basti, Barwatola, Dharjori, P.O. Bhulinagar, P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad.

8. Chandni Kumari, D/o Ramanand Thakur, age about 30 years, R/o Gandhi Road, Near Shewa Medical, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

9. Dolly Parween, D/o Md. Sakib Ansari, age about 32 Years, R/o Azad Nagar, Near Aman Society, Gate No. 1, Bhuli Darjopri, P.O. & P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 26 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

10. Shaheen Parween, D/o Md. Rafique Khan, age about 25 years, R/o New Islampur, Near Modern English Academy, Pandarpalal, Bishunpur, P.O. & P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad.

11. Basanti Devi, W/o Late Dinesh Kumar Mahato, age about 32 year, R/o Chhattand, Near Shiov Mandir, Phuphuadi, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad.

12. Kavita Kumari D/o Lakshman Mahato, age about 27 years, R/o Maniatand, Near Jharkhand Office, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

13. Seema Kumari, D/o Lakhan Mahto, age about 27 year, Maniatand, Near Jharkhand Office, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

14. Shanti Devi, W/o Late Anurodh Bhuyan, age about 29 years, R/o Near Area Office Jayrampur Area No. 02, P.O. & P.S. Tisra, Dhanbad.

15. Nandni Kumari, D/o Nandlal Chouhan, age about 25 years, R/o Patra Kulhi Chouhan Basti, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

16. Asha Mahato, D/o Manbhul Mahato, age about 25 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Madandih Basjora, Loyabad, Dhanbad.

17. Savitri Devi, W/o Suresh Mahato, age about 29 years, R/o South Balihari Basti, Kusunda, P.O. & P.S. Putki, Dhanbad.

18. Rekha Kumari, W/o Birendra Mahto, age about 29 years, R/o H.No 43, Pandarpala, Mahto Tola, Bishunpur, P.O. & P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad.

19. Chunnu Khatoon, D/o Idrish Ansari, age about 28 years, R/o Salimar Jailgora, Near St. Xaviers School, P.O. & P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 27 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

20. Monu Khatoon, D/o Idrish Ansari, age about 28 years, R/o Salimar Jailgora, Near St. Xaviers School, P.O. & P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad.

21. Lalita Kumari, D/o Lalan Rajak, age about 32 years, R/o Near Kali Mandir, Kapuria, Jogta P.O. & P.S. Bhelatand Basti, Dhanbad.

22. Kiran Kumari, D/o Manoranjan Vishwakarma, age about 27 years, R/o Lohar Basti, Rangamati, P.O. & P.S. Sindri, Dhanbad.

23. Pramila Kumari, D/o Govardhan Mahato, age bout 27 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Lower Dungi Basti, P.O. & P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad.

24. Madhu Kumari, D/o Suresh Mahto, age about 28 years, R/o Near Tata, Jora Pokhar Basti, Jama Duba, P.O. & P.S. Jorapokhar, Dhanbad..

25. Pinky Kumari @Pinki Kumari, W/o Mahabir Mahato, age about 25 years, R/o Nunudih Basti pathaldih, Sudamdih, P.O. & P.S. Sudamdih, Dhanbad.

26. Poonam Kumari, D/o Sant Mahato, age about 28 years, R/o Kali Garh Basti, Boragarh, Near Shiv Mandir, Amtal, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, Dhanbad.

27. Baby Kumari Mahto, D/o Hiralal Mahto, age about 24 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir Chhattand, P.O. & P.S. Saraidhela, Dhanbad.

28. Ranjeeta Kumari, D/o Om Prakash Mandal, age about 27 years, R/o Gandhi Road, Haldi Patti, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

29. Tumpa Devi, W/o Raju Kumar Mahato, age about 27 years R/o Kachhi Balihari 10 no., Kusunda, P.O. & P.S. Putki, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 28 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

30. Sweety Kumari@ Sweety Devi, age about 24 years, Jorapokhar Basti, Near Tata Project Office, Kalmegha, P.O. & P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad

31. Neelam Kumari Tudu, D/o Yudihtir Tudu, age about 24 years, R/o Sindri Nimtand Basti, Domgarh, P.O. & P.S. Sindri, Dhanbad.

32. Deepa Kumari, D/o Arun Kumar Keshari, age about 26 Years, R/o 412 Sindri Road, Near Mahabir Takij, Digwadih No. 12, Jealgora P.O. & P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad.

33. Meera Kumar@Mira Kumari, D/o Late Gobardhan Mahto, W/o Raj Narayan Kissan, age about 28 years, R/o Paterdih, Garghabad, P.O. & P.S. Sudamdih, Dhanbad.

34. Geeta Kumari, D/o Khushan Mahato, age about 24 year, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, P.O. & P.S. Jorapokhar, Dhanbad.

35. Babita Kumari, W/o Madan Kumar Mahato, age about 34 year, R/o Paterdih, Garghabad, P.O. & P.S. Sudamdih, Dhanbad

36. Babita Kumari, D/o Upendra Kandu, age about 27 Years, R/o Near Central Store, Ekra Bansjora, Loyabad, P.O. & P.S. Bansjora, Dhanbad.

37. Lilawati Kumari, D/o Sitaram Mahto age about 32 years, R/o Lower Dumri Basti, P.O. & P.S. Jorapokhar, Dhanbad.

38. Arti Kumari, W/o Rohit Kumar Chouhan, age about 29 years, R/o Patra Kulhi, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad.

39. Reema Kumari, D/o Bindheshwar Mahto, age about 25 year, R/o Patra Kulhi, P.O. & P.S. Sudamdih, Dhanbad.

40. Aorni Kumari, D/o Lata Manga Ram Modi, age about 29 years, R/o Bhuli Basti Bhuli Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Bank More, Dhanbad. Petitioner ... W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 29 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. The Director General of Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Police Headquarters, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.

4. The District Commandant, Home Guard, Dhanbad., P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad., Dist.- Dhanbad.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad., P.O. & P.S.-- Dhanbad., Dist.- Dhanbad.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad., P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad., Dist.- Dhanbad. … Respondents With W.P. (S) No. 1576 of 2021

1. Anil Kumar Mahto, S/O Bhuneshwar Mahto, age about 26 years, R/O Sadariyadih P.O. & P.S. Baghmara, Keshargarh, Dhanbad.

2. Manoj Kumar Mahto, S/O Gyan Chand Mahto, age about 28 years, R/O Satpahari, Topchanchi, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

3. Alok Kumar Mahto, S/O Dukhu Mahto, age about 26 years, R/O A. Kudamu, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Tantri, Dhanbad.

4. Vijay Kumar Ajad, S/O Helu Dom, age about 26 years, R/O Mantand, Chitrapur, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad. 5. Ajay Gope, S/O Rasik Gope, age about 28 years, R/O Near Kali Mandir, Dayabanspahar, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

6. Gendu Kumar Mahto, S/O Latan Mahto, age about 27 years, R/O Paharpur, Dumdumi, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad, W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 30 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

7. Bhupendra Mahto, S/O Ruplal Mahto, age about 26 years, R/O Amtand, Ramakunda P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

8. Hari Prasad Roy, S/O Rameshwar Roy, age about 26 years, R/O Ramkanali, Dangi, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

9. Chinmay Bauri @ Chinmoy Bauri, S/O Rabindranath Bauri, age about 37 years, R/O 233, Near Kali Mandir, Gopinathpur, Mugma, Kapasra, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

10. Gaurav Kumar Singh, aged about 25 years, S/O Shyam Sunder Singh, R/O Village Panchmahali, Ward No. 11, Panchmahali, P.O. Gyarkund & P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad.

11. Md. Taslim Arif, S/O Ainul Haque Ansari, age about 31 years, R/O Upchuria, Ubchuria, Poddardih, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

12. Chhotu Lal Marandi, S/O Late Mangal Marandi, age about 29years, R/o House No. 138, Village-Gorga, Mradih, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

13. Dhananjay Bauri, S/O Naru Bauri, age about 24years, R/O Sijua, Moradih, P.O. & P.S Nirsa, Dhanbad.

14. Gobardhan Mahato, S/O Haradhan Mahato, age about 28 years, R/o Shyamapur, Bhuiadih, P.O. & P.S Nirsa, Dhanbad.

15. Mithun Kumar Yadav, S/O Tetar Yadav, age about 26years, R/o Sindri, Heraijam, P.O. & P.S Nirsa, Dhanbad.

16. Devgun Marandi, S/O Bhutan Marandi, age about 30 years, R/o Tetultar, P.O. & P.S Sijua, Moradih Dhanbad.

17. Bhairav Nath Murmu, S/O Moti Lal Murmu, age about 29years, R/o Gabhala, Benagoriah, P.O. 7 P.S. Sijua Moradih, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 31 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

18. Ganesh Sahani, S/O Bheem Sahani, age about 25years, R/o Bhagabandh, Patarpur, P.O. & P.S Nirsa, Dhanbad.

19. Anil Murmu, S/O Late Hopna Mumru, age about 34 years, R/o Belchari, Sasanberia, P.O. & P.S Nirsa, Dhanbad.

20. Bablu Murmu, S/O Late Jay Deo Murmu, age about 29 years, R/o Talberia, Benagaria, P.O. & P.S Nirsa, Dhanbad.

21. Goutam Kumar Mahato, S/O Krishna Kumar Mahato, age about 26years, R/o Village. Dolabar, Moko, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur, Dhanbad.

22. Aditya Mondal, S/O Madhusudan Mandal, age about 26 years, R/o Salpatra, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur Dhanbad.

23. Manoj Kumar Mahato, S/O Tarapad Mahato, age about 30 years, R/o Baghmaria, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur, Dhanbad.

24. Amarjeet Mahato, S/O Nirmal Chandra Mahato, age about 25 years, R/o Baghmaria, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur, Dhanbad.

25. Madhab Gope, S/O Lambodar Gope, age about 24 years, R/o Moko, Dolabar, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur, Dhanbad.

26. Suresh Kumar Mahato, S/O Dhuru Prasad Mahato, age about 25 years, R/o Baghmaria, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur, Dhanbad.

27. Mahadev Mallick, S/O Badal Mallick, age about 31years, Village Karitand, Pradhankhanta, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur, Dhanbad.

28. Mithun Gorain @ Mithun Gorai, S/O Niranjan Gorai, age about 27years, R/o Dhangi, Barahgari, Pradhankhanta, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur, Dhanbad.

29. Yudhisther Kumar Mahto, S/O Kalicharan Mahto, age about 28 years, R/o Garbu Dech, Lalpur, P.O. & PS. Putki, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 32 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

30. Ganesh Mahato, S/O Late Paltu Mahato, age about 31 years, R/O Village Palani, P.O & P.S. Baliarpur, Dhanbad.

31. Kunal Acharjee, S/O Rajendra Kumar Acharjee, age about 24years, R/o Village Salukchapra, P.O & P.S. Baliarpur, Dhanbad.

32. Ashish Gorai, S/O Bimal Gorai, age about 25 years, R/o Nirsa, Daldali,, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

33. Sarifuddin Ansari, S/O Samsuddin Miyan, age about 26 years, R/o Bhurkundabari, Shyamapur, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

34. Sharat Lal Marandi, S/O Rup Lal Marandi, age about 27 years, R/o Dumaria, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa Dhanbad.

35. Sameer Kumar Gope, S/O Sukhdeo Kumar Gope, age about 28 years, R/o Jamkudar, Ambona, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

36. Mumtaz Alam, S/O Lalu Miyan, age about 26 years, R/o Banda Basti, Badhna, Panchet Dam, P.O.& P.S.- Chirkunda, Dhanbad.

37. Kajal Kumar Mandal, S/O Nitai Mandal, age about 25 years, R/o R/o Jamkudar, Ambona, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

38. Mukhtar Ansari, S/O Tahir Ansari, age about 24 years, R/o Khokhra Pahari, Lohariya, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad,

39. Yudhisthir Gorai, S/O Budhu Gorai, age about 28 years, R/o Bandrabad, Daldali, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

40. Saheb Ram Rajak, S/O Binod Rajak, age about 26 years, R/O Badal pur, Ankhduwar, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

41. Paresh Rajak, S/o Chhutu Rajak, age about 26 years, R/O Kashitand, Rampur, Maharajganj, P.O. & P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 33 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

42. Bhola Yadav, S/O Yadunanadan Yadav, age about 25 years, R/O Village Panchmahli, P.O. & P.S. Panchmahli, Dhanbad.

43. Arun Ravidas, S/O Mathur Ravidas, age about 27 years, R/o Bardangal, Kumar Dhubi, P.O.& P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad.

44. Santosh Mahato, S/O Ravi Lal Mahato, age about 24 years, R/O Barbari, Ledaharia, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhandab.

45. Goutam Pandey, S/O Mohan Pandey, age about 28 years, R/o Kashitanr, Maharajganj, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

46. Anoj Kumar Murmu, S/O Shaita Murmu, age about 26 years, R/o Kurkutand, Mayranwatanr, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad,

47. Manoj Marandi, S/O Lopsa Marandi, age about 24 years, R/o Badabaad, Pokhariya, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

48. Simanto Rajak, S/O Banarshi Rajjak, age about 26 years, R/o Rampur, Maharajganj, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

49. Ajit Rajak, S/O Janki Rajak, age about 27 years, R/o Rampur, Maharajganj, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

50. Ajay Rajak, S/O Sudhir Rajjak, age about 27 years, R/o Rampur, Maharajganj, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

51. Deepak Soren, S/O Shyam Lal Soren, age about 27 years, R/o Kharoidih, Badna, Panchet Dam, P.O.& P.S.- Kharodih, Dhanbad.

52. Sandeep Kumar Mahato, S/O Abhjeet Kumar Mahato, age about 26 years, R/o Benagoria, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

53. Bijay Kisku, S/O Ravi Kisku, age about 24 years, R/o Kharoidih, Badna, Panchet Dam, P.O.& P.S.- Kharodih, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 34 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

54. Milan Kumar Das, S/O Dinabandhu Das, age about 24 years, R/o Bhurkunda Badri, Thapa Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

55. Bhadu Baskey, S/O Jiten Baskey, age about 24 years, R/o Tetulia, Susunliya, Ankduara, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

56. Rakesh Ray, S/O Puna Ray, age about 26years, R/o Susunliya, Ankduara, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

57. Kartik Rajak, S/O Gopal Rajak, age about 31 years, R/o Badalpur, Ankduara, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

58. Jaydev Kisku, S/O Bodinath Kisku, age about 26 years, R/o Khadapathar, Susunliya, Ankduara, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

59. Chiranjit Bauri, S/O Dilip Kumar Bauri, age about 27 years, R/o Jaypur, Dumaria, P.O.& P.S.- Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

60. Goutam Mandal, S/O Bishwanath Mandal, age about 26 years, R/o Badalpur, Susunliya, Ankduara, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

61. Bibek Gorai, S/O Paresh Gorai, age about 26 years, R/O Dumariya, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

62. Dhananjay Rajak, S/o Binod Rajak, age about 33 years, R/o Badalpur, Susunliya, Ankduara, P.O. & P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

63. Deepak Gorain, S/O Bhudeo Gorain, age about 25 years, R/o New Durga Mandir, Gorain Tola, P.O. & P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

64. Sanjeeb Kumar Mandal, S/O Kritan Mandal, age about 30 years, R/o Koiree, Chotaambona, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

65. Dipen Mandal, S/O Naresh Mandal, age about 26 years, R/o Koiree, Chotaambona, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 35 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

66. Rajen Bauri, S/O Fulman Bauri, age about 24 years, R/o Barmuri, Salukchapra, Ankduara, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

67. Nirmal Dhibar, S/O Late Swarup Dhibar, age about 25 years, R/o Barmuri, Salukchapra, Ankduara, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

68. Milan Dey, S/O Samir Kumar Dey, age about 24 years, R/o Ankduara, P.O.& P.S.- Nirsa, Dhanbad.

69. Anil Soren, S/O Devi Lal Soren, age about 24 years, R/o Barban, Ledahana, P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

70. Bablu Kumar Murmu, S/O Sonantan Murmu, age about 25 years, R/o Shaharapura, Ukma, P.O.& P.S.-Tundi, Dhanbad.

71. Ramesh Bhandari, S/O Mahavir Bhandari, age about 24 years, R/O Sohnad, Ukma, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

72. Rajendra Murmu, S/O Shikhar Murmu, age about 27 years, R/O Singraidih, Fatehpur, P.O. & P.S.- Tundi, Dhanbad,

73. Vikash Murmu, S/O Hemshwar Murmu, age about 24 years, R/o Ramkanali, Ukma, P.O.& P.S.-Tundi, Dhanbad.

74. Sukdev Soren, S/O Late Sukoo Soren, age about 25 years, R/O Reiwat, Harila Kol, Chepkia, Adro, P.O. & P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

75. Raju Marandi, S/O Mastan Marandi, age about 27 years, R/o Ramkanali, Ukma, P.O.& P.S.-Tundi, Dhanbad.

76. Lakhikant Tudu, S/O Suryodhan Tudu, age about 27 years, R/O Harila Kol, Ukma, P.O. & P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

77. Haripad Souren, S/O Budhu Soren, age about 26 years, R/o Biswadih, Pokharia, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 36 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

78. Ram Soren, S/O Satish Soren, age about 26 years, R/o Kurkutand, Maira Nawatand, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

79. Manoj Rajwar, S/O Mahadeo Rajwar, age about 29 years, R/o Kurkutand, Maira Nawatand, P.O.& P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

80. Misilal Tudu, S/O Prabhu Tudu, age about 32 years, R/o Shaharapura, Chepkia, Ukma, P.O.& P.S.-Tundi, Dhanbad,

81. Sachin Kumar Mahato, S/O Pradeep Kumar Mahato, age about 26 years, R/O Khesmi, Hariharpur, Gomoh, P.O.& P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

82. Umesh Kumar Mahto, S/O Sudan Mahto, age about 25 years, R/o Bramhadih, Topchanchi, P.O.& P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

83. Ahmad Raza, S/O Abdul Kuddus, age about 24 years, R/o Gunghasa, Sukudih, P.O.& P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

84. Sanjeev Bharti, S/O Lakhan Bauri, age about 28 years, R/O Topchanchi, P.O. & P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

85. Prakash Mahto, S/O Jitendra, Prashad Mahto, age about 29 years, R/o Machhiadah, Topchanchi, P.O.& P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

86. Rupesh Mahto, S/O Devendra Mahto, age about 27 years, R/o H.No. 23, Machhiadah, Hariharpur, Topchanchi, P.O.& P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

87. Rajesh Mohali, S/O Sadhucharan Mohali, age about 29 years, R/o Singdaha, Topchanchi, P.O.& P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

88. Avinash Kumar Singh, S/O Dwarika Prasad Singh, age about 27 years, R/o Singdaha, Topchanchi, P.O.& P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 37 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

89. Bhekhlal Mahto, S/O Bulaki Mahto, age about 23 years, R/o Dumdumi, Paharpur, Topchanchi, P.O.& P.S. Topchanchi, Dhanbad.

90. Gopal Mahato, S/O Bhola Mahato, age about 24 years, R/o Vill Barawatand, Ojadih, Katania, P.O. & P.S.- Tundi, Dhanbad.

91. Lalu Rajak, S/O Banu Rajak, age about 27 years, R/o Chota Pichri, Kalyan Pur, P.O. & P.S. Barwadda, Dhanbad.

92. Shiv Shankar Soren, S/O Kalicharan Soren, age about 29 years, R/O Nichitpur, Tilayia, P.O. & P.S. Barwadda, Dhanbad.

93. Kanhai Mandal, S/O Alok Mandal, age about 28 years, R/o Vill Bardohi, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

94. Sanjay Kumar Mahato, S/O Tuntun Mahato, age about 33 years, R/o Dhobni, P.O.& P.S. Putki, Dhanbad.

95. Devilal Mahato, S/O Duryodhan Mahato, age about 30 years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Kusunda, P.O.& P.S. Putki, Dhanbad.

96. Binod Rajwar, S/O Late Patal Rajwar, age about 26 years, R/o Vill Dokhara, Damodarpur, P.O.& P.S. Baliapur, Dhanbad,

97. Abhishekh Singh Choudhary, S/O Late Shrikant Singh Choudhary, age about 26 years, R/o Siyalgudari, Near Durga Mandir, Kusunda, P.O.& P.S. Putki, Dhanbad.

98. Bhola Kumar, S/O Indra Dev Paswan, age about 26 years, R/O Loyabad, New Drift, Bansjora, Near Duga Mandir, Loyabad, P.O.& P.S.- Loyabad, Dhanbad.

99. Shyam Kumar Gope, S/O Anil Gope, age about 26 years, R/O Near Kali Mandir, Jarma Basti, Dhobni, Lalpur, P.O.& P.S. Putki, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 38 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

100. Sanjay Kumar Ray, S/O Satendar Ray, age about 24 years, R/O Chaprasi Daura, Near Old Post Office Gopinathpur, Kapasara, Mugma, P.O. & P.S. Gopinathpur, Dhanbad.

101. Manilal Murmu, S/O Nispati Murmu, age about 31 years, R/o Shaharpur, Chepkiya, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

102. Haripad Tudu, S/O Motilal Tudu, age about 24 years, R/o Mohalideeh, Pokhariya, P.O. & P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

103. Kalipad Soren, S/O Budhu Soren, aged about 29 years, R/o Bishwadih, Mohlidih, Pokharia, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

104. Hiralal kumar, S/O Vishwanath Kumar, aged about 25 years, R/O Latani, P.O. & P.S. Tundi Dhanbad.

105. Kashi Nath Soren, S/O Rameshwar Soren, age about 33 years, R/o Kurkutand, Mayranawatanar, P.O. & P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

106. Santosh Bauri, S/O Durga Bauri, age about 26 years, R/o Soharpura, Chepkia, Chepkiya, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, Dhanbad.

107. Kalipad Hembram, S/O Lakhindra Hembram, aged about 23 years, R/o Gram Pandanitand, Sundar Pahari, P.O.& P.S Tundi, Dhanbad.

108. Shailesh Marandi, S/O Ishwar Marandi, aged about 33 years, R/O Nawdiha, Mayranawatanr, P.O. & P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

109. Sonalal Hembarm, S/O Lagan Hembram, age about 25 years, R/O Nawdiha, Mayranawatanr, P.O. & P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad.

110. Sanjeet Kumar Yadav, S/O Mahangu Yadav, age about 25 years, R/O Near Maithan, Morin Stand, Panchmahali, P.O.& P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 39 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

111. Deepak Kumar Sharma, S/O Pradeep Sharma, age about 27 years, R/o Egarkund, Mohul Bagan Colony, Kumardhubi, Kalimati, P.O.& P.S. Kumardhubi, Dhanbad.

112. Mantosh Kumar Sharma, S/O Vinod Sharma, age about 25 years, R/O Kapsara, Indra Nagar, Mugma More, P.O.& P.S. Chirkumda, Dhanbad.

113. Mukesh Bauri, S/O Dhiren Bauri, age about 35 years, R/O Shiv Dangal, Gopinathpur, Kapasara, P.O.& P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad.

114. Bubai Bauri, S/O Manik Bauri, age about 25 years, R/O Gupalpur, Rajpur, Mugma, P.O.& P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad.

115. Mukesh Bauri, S/O Sunil Bauri, age about 24 years, R/O Egarkund Dakshin, Panchamali, P.O.& P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad.

116. Manoj Kumar, S/O Bhim Shingh Yadav, age about 33 years, R/O Purbi Mohalla, Near Devi Mandir, Shiblibari, Panchmahli, Kumardhubi, P.O.& P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad.

117. Sanjay Yadav S/O Kuldip Yadav, age about 28 years, R/O Chanch, Potri, P.O.& P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad.

118. Kirshna Kumar Yadav, S/O Suresh Kumar Yadav, age about 24 years, R/O Gopalpur, Mugma P.O.& P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad.

119. Pramod Kumar Mishra, S/O Krishna Nandan Mishra, age about 27 years, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Shivli Bari, North P.O. & Kumardhubi, P.S. Kumardhubi, Dhanbad

120. Md. Firoz Ansari, S/O Md. Moinuddin Ansari, Aged About 27 years, R/O Kotaldih, Maharajganj, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 40 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

121. Ranjit Murmu, S/O MishirMurmu, Aged About 26 years, R/O Madhupur, Jhinaki, P.O. Jhinaki, P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

122. Naresh Kumar Gope, S/O Tulsi Prasad Gope, Aged About 28 years, R/O Ratanpur, P.O. Ratanpur, P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

123. Sushil Kisku, S/O GunenKisku, Aged About 24 years, R/O Barwadih, Katnia, Ojhadih, P.O. Katania, P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

124. Ashok Baski, S/O LakhiramBaski, Aged About 31 years, R/O Karmatand, Tundi, P.O. & P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

125. Biswanath Hasda, S/O Nunulal Hasda, Aged About 29 years, R/O Chhatani Pahadi, Ojhadih, Katania, P.O. Ojhadih, P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

126. Shukdew Hembram, S/O Rameshwar Hembram, Aged About 24 years, R/O Panchayat Jatakhunti Block Tundi, Vill Kenduwatand, P.O. Charak, P.S. Tundi, Charak Kala, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

127. Binod Kisku, S/O Rajendra Kisku, Aged About 24 years, R/O Raghunathpur, P.O. G. Raghunathpur, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

128. Aphisar Hembram, S/O Sidam Hembram, Aged About 27 P.O. years, Sundarpahari, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand. Sundarpahari, Pandanitand, R/O

129. Binod Hembram, S/O KoleshwarHembram, Aged About 27 years, R/O Pandanitand, Churuia, P.O. Sundarpahari, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

130. Dharmendra Rajak, S/O DukhanRajak, Aged About 32 years, R/O Rampur, Maharajganj, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. Tundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 41 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

131. Sunil Ray, S/O Nilambar Ray, Aged About 27 years, R/O Kanshitand, Rampur, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

132. Kamlesh Rajak, S/O ChhutuRajak, Aged About 26 years, R/O Kanshitand, Rampur, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

133. Imran Shah, S/O Sayed Shah, Aged About 25 years, R/O Gethibera, Rampur, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

134. Md. Saddam Hussain, S/O Md. Yunus Ansari, Aged About 28 years, R/O Kopli, Rampur, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

135. Uday Kumar Mishra, S/O Prakash Kumar Mishra, Aged About 30 years, R/O Fatepur, Fatepur, P.O. Fatepur, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

136. Subal Chandra, S/O Narayan Chandra, Aged About 24 years, R/O, Latani, Govindpur, P.O. Latani, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

137. Ajay Hansda, S/O NandlalHansda, Aged About 25 years, R/O Village - Bamanbad, P.O. Latani, P.S. PurbiTundi, VTC - Latani, Sub District - Tundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

138. Ruel Murmu, S/O Prem Murmu, Aged About 29 years, R/O Ghosaldih, Pokharia, P.O. Pokharia, P.S. PurbiTundi, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

139. Bablu Kisku, S/O Turka Kisku, Aged About 25 years, R/O Village Singraidih, P.O. Fatehpur, P.S. Tundi, Fatepur, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

140. Suraj Kumar Yadav, S/O Bhaso Yadav, Aged About 24 years, R/O Brindabanpur, Mugma More, Kapasara P.O. Mugma, P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad Jharkhand. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 42 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

141. Dhananjoy Mandal, S/O Late Amal Mondal, Aged About 24 years, R/O Near Durga Mandir, Nutangram, Chirkunda, P.S.- Chirkunda, Nirsa-cum-Chirkunda, Dhanbad,Jharkhand. P.O. &

142. Banti Nag, S/O Sudam Nag, Aged About 27 years, R/O 0, 0, Garikhana, Kumardhubi, Shibalibari Panchmahli, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad Jharkhand. South,

143. Pintu Gorai, S/O HaradhanGorai, Aged About 28 years, R/O Kumardhubi Bazar, Baghakuri Road, Shibalibari South, Panchmahli, Kamardhubi, Nirsa cum Chirkunda, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

144. Somdev Bauri, S/O Badan Bauri, Aged About 26 years, R/O Siyarkanali, Egarkund South, Panchmahli, Kumardhubi, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

145. Tapas Roy, S/O Tarachand Roy, Aged About 24 years, R/O Kusum Kanti, Egarkund South, Panchmahli, Kumardhubi, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

146. Milan Mondal, S/O Rajendra Kumar Mondal, Aged About 29 years, R/O Kali Pahari, Kamaliya, P.O. Maithon Dam, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

147. Bhola Kumar, S/O Jai Prakash Yadav, Aged About 25 years, R/OKalimati, Kumardhubi, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

148. Vikas Kumar, S/O Dayali Yadav, Aged About 24 years, R/O Maithon More, Venus Tailor Gali, Shiblibari, Panchmahli, Kumardhubi, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

149. Bittu Kumar Yadav, S/O Srikant Yadav, Aged About 24 years, R/O Salika, Maithon More, Near Mishra Pan Dukan, Shibilbari, Kalimati, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad Jharkhand. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 43 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

150. Govind Kisku, S/O Kashinath Kisku, Aged About 26 years, R/O Gorga, Panrrabejra, Moradih, P.O. Moradih, P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

151. Jay Chand Hansda, S/O ManoranjanHansda, Aged About 25 years, R/O Village - Bhalpahari, P.O. Benagoria, P.S. Nirsa, Benagaria, Dhanbad Jharkhand.

152. Sintu Kumar Mandal, S/O Vijay Mandal, Aged About 30 years, R/O Kumardhubi, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad Jharkhand

153. Suraj Kumar Sinha, S/O Rajendra Prasad Sinha, Aged About 25 years R/O Bardangal, Panchamohli, Chirkunda, Panchmahli, Kumardhubi, P.O. Kumardhubi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

154. Raj Kumar Mandal, S/O Sukdev Mandal, Aged About 26 years, R/O Koiree, Chhotambana, Ambona, P.O. Ambona, P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.-.- Ranchi.

3. The Director General of Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Police Headquarters, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.

4. The District Commandant, Home Guard, Dhanbad., P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad., Dist.- Dhanbad.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad., P.O. & P.S.-- Dhanbad., Dist.- Dhanbad.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad., P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad., Dist.- Dhanbad. … Respondents W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 44 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) With W.P. (S) No. 1413 of 2022

1. Jay Prakash Kumar, S/o Umesh Singh, Aged about 27 years, R/o Village Gyarkund, P.O. KumarDhubhi, P.S. Chirkundi, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

2. Akhilesh Kumar, S/o Ram Prasad Singh, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Kumar Dhubhi, Kalimati, P.O. Kumardhubhi, P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

3. Jitendra Kumar, S/o Janeshwar Singh, Aged about 24 years, R/o Nirsa Uttar, Vidyasagar Colony, Nirsa, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

4. Nandini Pramanik, D/o Nimai Chandra Pramanik, Aged About 24 years, R/o Jograd, Kumardhubhi, Village Gyarkund, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

5. Soni Singh, W/o Chandan Kumar Singh, Aged About 28 years, R/o Village Gyarkund, Chanch Pottery, Chirkunda, P.O. & P.S. Chirkunda, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

6. Vikash Kumar Gupta, S/o Shiv Prasad Gupta, Aged About 26 years, R/o House No. 99, Bastacola, Sonar Basti, Indira Chowk, Dhansar, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

7. Arjun Kumar Gope, S/o Mohan Gope, Aged About 26. Years, R/o Bhowra No. 12, Bhagmara, Jora Pokhar, P.O. Bhowra, P.S. Jora Pokhar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

7. Anup Kumar, S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Near Club, Bhowra Nagar, P.O. Bhowra, P.S. Jorapokhar, Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 45 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 )

1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi. 3. The Director General of Home Guard, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Police Headquarters, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi.

4. The District Commandant, Home Guard, Dhanbad., P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad., Dist.- Dhanbad.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad., P.O. & P.S.-- Dhanbad., Dist.- Dhanbad.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad., P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad., Dist.- Dhanbad. … Respondents ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioners For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV ---- : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. ---- Dated: 15/07/2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, Learned S.C.-IV.

2. Since in all these writ applications, common questions of law and fact are involved, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioners in these writ applications have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to complete the process of selection of the petitioners by enrolment and issuance of certificate of appointment to the petitioners whose names have appeared in the final merit list published on 26-11-2018 pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/2017 dated 27-12-2017 in a time-bound manner. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the Letter No. 07/Home Guard (Establishment)-10/2020-2491 W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 46 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) dated 15-06-2022 issued by the respondent no. 2 cancelling the Advertisement No. 01/2017 and further setting aside any advertisement if published pursuant to the Letter No. 07/Home Guard (Establishment)-10/2020-2491 dated 15-06-2022 issued by the respondent no. 2 calling for fresh selection/recruitment to the post of Home Guard for the District of Dhanbad till the petitioners whose names are appearing in the first merit list published on 26-11-2018 pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2017 dated 27-12-2017 accommodated/ enrolled/appointed. A further prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from making recruitment to the post of Home Guard or postpone any selection process through advertisement, if any, published for the district of Dhanbad or calling for recruitment through advertisement till the petitioners whose names are appearing in the final merit list published on 26-11- 2018 pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2017 dated 27-12-2017 are accommodated/enrolled/appointed or alternatively, intake for the next recruitment reduced by the number of candidates already awaiting appointment pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2017.

4. The factual matrix of the cases reveal that an advertisement was published under the aegis of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the Hindi daily newspaper bearing Advertisement No. 01/2017 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Home Guards on both rural and urban areas in the District of Dhanbad. The advertisement indicated about 405 vacancies for the post of Home Guard in rural areas and 663 vacancies in urban areas. The advertisement also stipulated various conditions including the eligibility criteria. The petitioners had submitted their applications within the time specified in the advertisement. The respondent no. 4 had published the dates for conducting physical and written examination in different W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 47 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) categories and for urban(non-technical) and rural areas, the dates were fixed as from 24-04-2018 to 04-05-2018, while for the urban areas the dates were fixed which were between 08-05- 2018 to 10-05-2018. The petitioners had duly participated in the physical as well as in the written examination on their respective dates and thereafter, a final merit list was published which was approved by the competent authority and subsequent thereto, the names of the successful candidates were published in the merit list dated 26-11-2018. The petitioners in these writ applications were declared successful as their names appeared in the merit list in the categories they had sought for appointment. Pursuant to the declaration of results, the respondents published dates for conducting verification of documents of successful candidates in the daily newspaper and the petitioners duly participated in the said exercise. After the verification of the documents, police verification was conducted by the respondent no. 5 and the petitioners had undergone medical examination at Sadar Hospital. On completion of all the formalities, a training list was prepared but neither any training session was held nor the petitioners were issued appointment letters. Representation submitted did not evoke any response. In view of the order of this Court dated 05-04-2022 in these writ applications, the respondent no. 2 had filed an interlocutory application wherein, two months’ time was prayed for to take a decision on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner. Finally, the petitioners were served with a copy of Letter No. 07/Home Guard (Establishment)-10/2020-2491 dated 15-06- 2022 issued by the respondent no. 2 by which, Advertisement No. 01/2017 was cancelled and the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were directed to start a fresh selection process.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the allegation of taking illegal gratification is with W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 48 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) respect to the second merit list. A complaint was made by one Rajendra Ravidas that one Dharmendra Kumar Singh had accepted money from the complainant on the pretext of getting his son and other candidates empaneled as Home Guards on the basis of which, Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 102/2020 was instituted against Dharmendra Singh. Charge sheet was also filed against Dharmendra Kumar Singh on account of his confessional statement that he had taken money from a few candidates on the pretext of getting them selected in the second merit list. It has been submitted that the allegation of taking money does not touch upon the first merit list in which the names of the petitioners’ figure and, therefore, only on account of some irregularity in the second merit list, the same should not affect the petitioners. Mr. Sinha has submitted that the first merit list can be segregated from the second merit list and a fresh process may be initiated for the second merit list. There is no allegation of large-scale malpractices in the entire process of selection. Mr. Sinha has, in support of his contention, referred to the case of Sachin Kumar & Ors. V. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors. reported in (2021) 4 SCC 631.

6. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned S.C.-IV has submitted that after publication of the merit list, various complaints were received regarding the selection alleging illegal gratification and a video of the same was also circulating in social media. He has referred to the Letter dated 06-10-2020 as contained in Memo No. 82 wherein, mention has been made of various complaints received regarding irregularities and malpractices which had occurred during the selection process. In this letter it has been mentioned that investigation is going on to detect the role played by those aspirants, who have been named in the confessional statement of Dharmendra Kumar Singh. When there is a large- scale corruption in the entire process of selection, it is difficult to W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 49 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) discern the candidates who had not resorted to unfair means and segregation of the merit list would be an impossibility in itself. A videography of the entire process of selection was made, but the same is not available which also creates a suspicion over the process of selection. In reply to the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, submission has been advanced that the said judgment will not be applicable as it is not possible to segregate the untainted candidates from the tainted candidates. When there is a large-scale irregularity, the entire selection process has to be scrapped. Mr. Bhaduri has referred to the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 and Union of India v. Tarun K. Singh reported in (2003) 11 SCC 768.

7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, in reply, has submitted that Amarjeet Kumar of Globus Services had volunteered to retrieve the videography if the hard disk was provided to him, but the same was never acted upon by the respondents. There is no other allegation of any irregularity, except absence of the videography.

8. The names of all the writ petitioners figured in the first merit list and even after completing all the necessary formalities, appointment letters were not issued to them despite repeated representations. Subsequently, the entire selection process was cancelled reportedly on account of certain malpractices in the said process. It is the consistent case of the writ petitioner that the entire episode of alleged irregularities and malpractices were related to the second list and in course of investigation into Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 102/2020, one Dharmendra Kumar Singh was found involved in such practices and that no deficiency was found with respect to the first merit list. The contentious issue is whether the first merit list can be segregated from the second merit list thus enabling the petitioners to be issued necessary letters for their appointment as Home Guards. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 50 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) The case of Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors. (supra) has been the focal point of argument of Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and the relevant paragraphs reads as follows: “35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not reinvent the wheel. Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon or cross over into the domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum where the authority conducting the examination or convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact- finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of malpractices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large-scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 51 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) credibility of the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of participants in the process who appear at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrongdoing from others who have adhered to the rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrongdoing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrongdoers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices and to penalise them for their wrongdoing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrongdoing on those who are free from taint. To treat innocent and the W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 52 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) wrongdoers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field.

39. The decision of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission [Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 1990 Supp SCC 692 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 461] (“Anamica Mishra”) involved recruitment to various posts in the educational services of the State of Uttar Pradesh. There was a two-stage recruitment involving a written test and interview. It was found that after the written examination, due to the improper feeding of data into the computer, some candidates who had a better performance in the written examination were not called for interview and candidates who secured lesser marks were not only called for the interview but were finally selected. The entire process was cancelled by the Public Service Commission. Dealing with the situation, this Court W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 53 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) observed: (SCC p. 693, para 4) “4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and are of the view that when no defect was pointed out in regard to the written examination and the sole objection was confined to exclusion of a group of successful candidates the written examination from the interview, there was no justification for cancelling the written part of the recruitment examination. On the other hand, the situation could have been appropriately met by setting aside the recruitment and asking for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates on the basis of the written examination and select those who on the basis of the written and the freshly-held interview became eligible for selection.” The case is, therefore, representative of a situation where the cancellation of the entire recruitment process was held not to be justified since there was no systemic flaw in the written test, and the issue was only with regard to calling the candidates for the interview. The situation could have been remedied by setting aside the selection made after the interview stage and calling for a interview of all eligible candidates. This is the ultimate direction which was issued by the Court.

41. On the other hand, the judgment of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. [Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 54 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) (2003) 7 SCC 285 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1048] involved a situation where a selection consequent to a written examination, interview and physical fitness test for filling up the posts of constables in the CBI was cancelled, due to allegations of favouritism on the part of the officers conducting the physical efficiency test and irregularities the written examination. A challenge to the cancellation failed before the Tribunal upon which proceedings were initiated before the High Court. A committee had been appointed by the Director, CBI, which upon meticulous examination found that 31 candidates who were otherwise ineligible were included in the selection list and an equal number of eligible candidates was ousted. In this backdrop, the High Court found [Rajesh v. Union of India, 2001 SCC OnLine Ker 531] that there was no justification to cancel the entire selection when the impact of irregularities which had crept into the evaluation of merits could be identified specifically and was found on verifying the records to have resulted in 31 candidates being selected undeservedly.

42. Upholding the view of the High Court, a two- Judge Bench of this Court held: (Rajesh P.U. case [Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., (2003) 7 SCC 285 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1048] , SCC p. 290, para 6) “6. … In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature, which could be really said to have W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 55 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.”

46. The decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon [Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 444] emphasises that when the services of employees are terminated on the ground that they may have aided and abetted corruption, the Court W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 56 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) must satisfy itself that conditions for this exist. The Court while setting aside a selection “may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled.” Dalveer Bhandari, J. in a separate opinion, held that where the basis of a termination of service involves serious allegations of corruption, it is imperative that the principles of natural justice must be fully complied with. The judgment of Bhandari (at SCC p. 414, para 119) emphasises the “peculiar facts of the case which … were that some of the candidates had worked for about three years and their services were terminated only on the basis of the criminal investigation which was at the initial stage. The termination of their services, as a consequence of the cancellation of selection would not only prejudice their interest seriously but would ruin their entire future career.” (emphasis supplied) Both the judgments concurred in issuing a direction to the High Court to consider the matters afresh and constitution of committees—one related to the executive officers and the other related to judicial officers for segregating tainted the untainted officers. Consequential directions were also issued for compliance with the principles of natural justice.

66. Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with functioning W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 57 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrongdoing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrongdoing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held recruitment. Both the High Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive focus on the report of the second Committee which was confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee is only one facet of the matter. The Deputy Chief Minister was justified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending that the entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findings which were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Those findings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any fault with those findings. In this view of the matter, both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable.”

9. It has been held that segregation is difficult in a situation where there has been complaints of large-scale irregularities or unfair means being adopted in a systematic manner. In the present case, the entire process of selection till the completion of the formalities with respect to the candidates of the first merit list in which the names of the petitioners figured proceeded smoothly, but was marred by corrupt practices resorted to by Dharmendra Kumar Singh in connivance with some of the aspirants. The videography of the entire selection process is also W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 58 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) not available. Segregation has to be based on a surety that there has been no malpractices in the first merit list to which the petitioners belong. Unfortunately, the sequence of events which had unfolded during the process of selection itself casts a shadow of mistrust and suspicion over such process and the averments made in the counter affidavit further solidify such doubt. The authorities who were involved in the recruitment process have exercised their discretion in cancelling the Advertisement No. 01/2017 based on sound reasonings and the same is in the teeth of the observations made in Sachin Kumar & Ors. (supra) reported in (2021) 4 SCC 631 which reads as under: “ 64. --------In such a situation, where a decision is taken by the Government to cancel the entire process, it cannot be to be irrational or arbitrary, applying the yardstick of fair procedure and proportionality to the decision- making process.”

10. Mr. Indranil Bahaduri, learned S.C.-IV has submitted that no indefeasible right accrues to a candidate whose name finds place in the select list and in such context, reference has been made to the case of Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh reported in (1993) 1 SCC 154 and the same reads as under: “7. We shall now proceed to examine the sustainability otherwise contentions. The judgment of CAT itself refers to the enquiry got conducted by Chandigarh Administration about the select list of 32 candidates as prepared by its Selection Board. That such enquiry revealed that the members of the Selection Board had made use of the interview W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 59 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) marks awardable by them for performance of candidates at interview to eliminate merited candidates from the list and to bring in unmerited candidates, is a matter adverted to in the said judgment. That such enquiry revealed that standards of eligibility applied to the candidates in the matter of their selection were not common, is also a matter adverted to in the said judgment. No doubt, the Chandigarh Administration (appellant) has found that there was no direct evidence of corruption produced against the members of the Selection Board for the favour they had shown in the matter of awarding high interview marks to unmerited candidates and low interview marks to merited candidates. Yet, having regard to the systematic manner of award by the Selection Board of high interview marks to candidates with low marks got educational qualifications and of low interview marks to candidates with high marks got for their educational qualifications, the Chandigarh Administration discerned the tilting of balance by the Selection Board in favour of candidates with poor qualifications and against candidates with high qualifications. Consequently, it concluded that the Selection Board had not prepared the select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU, in a fair and judicious manner. When the select list prepared by the Selection Board was thus regarded by the Chandigarh Administration as a dubious select list, cancelled that select list and constituted a new W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 60 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) Selection Board to prepare a fresh select list of candidates out of the competing candidates including the candidates whose cases were considered by the earlier Selection Board, on a fresh selection criteria which provided for award of as large as 85 per cent marks for educational qualifications of candidates and for award of as little as 15 per cent marks for performance of candidates at interview, by making an order in that regard. The order so made by the Chandigarh Administration cannot but be regarded as the right and the just one. Such an order, as is held by CAT, cannot be vitiated on the ground that it had been made without affording an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Selection Board who had prepared it. Further, such an order cannot be vitiated either because no direct evidence was made available to prove corruption charges against the members of the Selection Board in the matter of award of interview marks by them so as to tilt the balance in favour of candidates with poor educational qualifications and against the candidates with high educational qualifications or because there was no opportunity of hearing afforded to the candidates in the select list to sustain it before its cancellation by the Chandigarh Administration.

11. In Shankarasan Dash v. Union India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95 : JT (1991) 2 SC 380] a Constitution Bench of this Court which had occasion to examine the question whether a W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 61 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) candidate seeking appointment to a civil post can be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely because of the appearance of his name in the merit list (select list) of candidates for such post has answered the question in the negative by enunciating the correct legal position thus : (SCC pp. 50-51, para 7) “It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions the State W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 62 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] ; Neelima Shangla (Miss) v. State of Haryana [(1986) 4 SCC 268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] or Jitender Kumar v. State of Punjab [(1985) 1 SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174 : (1985) 1 SCR 899] .”

12. If we have regard the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by non-appointment only when Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In instant case, when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those complaints to be well founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we are unable to find that the Chandigarh Administration had acted either W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 63 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling such dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents as to the sustainability of the judgment of CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an opportunity of hearing to the respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and is consequently rejected.”

11. In the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Tarun Kumar & Ors. (supra), it has been held as follows: “4. The question for consideration whether learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court was justified in interfering with an order of cancellation passed by the competent authority and directing that the process of selection should be completed. Needless to mention that subsequent the order of cancellation, in view of the allegation of malpractice, the departmental authorities had held an enquiry into the matter and the result of that enquiry revealed gross irregularities and illegalities as referred to in the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. Consequently, the process of selection to a public office, which stands vitiated by adoption of large- scale malpractice, cannot be permitted to be sustained by a court of law. That apart, an individual applicant for any particular post does not get a right to be enforced by a mandamus unless and until he is selected in the process of selection and gets the letter of appointment. In the case in hand, much before the so-called list of W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 64 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) selection was approved by the Railway Board, the order of cancellation had emanated on the basis of complaints received from so many quarters. In view of the subsequent findings of the Enquiry Committee which has gone into the matter, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was wholly in error in issuing the direction in question and therefore the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was fully justified in interfering with the said order of learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court committed error in following the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is set aside and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court is upheld. In the circumstances, we allow the Union’s appeals and dismiss the appeals filed on behalf of the individual candidates. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Any other question of law remains open.”

12. Thus, viewed in the backdrop of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and when a cloud of suspicion hovers over the entire selection process and since the petitioners do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed, merely on account of their names figuring in the first merit list, segregating the selection process in such circumstances, would tantamount to perpetuating the illegal and unfair malpractices adopted in the selection process itself.

13. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I do not find W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 65 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:19879 ) any reason to accede to the prayer of the writ petitioners and consequently, all the writ applications are dismissed.

14. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 15th Day of July, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R. W.P.(S) NO. 1440 OF 2021 66