Jharkhand Recruitment Judgment Dismisses Misc Applications

Case Details

Case Name: Raj Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India, Court No.3, Section XVII‑B.
Diary Numbers: 48396/2025, 31001/2025, 39011/2025, 43106/2025, 59613/2025, 64804/2025 (all under Section XVII‑B).
Related Judgments: Civil Appeal No. 1298 of 2025 dated 30‑Jan‑2025; Civil Appeal No. 1297 of 2025.
Hearing Date: 19‑May‑2026.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.
Special Leave Petitions: SLP(C) No. 25455/2025 and SLP(C) No. 25459/2025.
Contempt Petitions: Diary Nos. 43106, 59613, 64804 of 2025 (in CA 1297/2025).

Parties Involved

Petitioner: Raj Kumar Mahto (along with other petitioners listed in the record).
Respondent: State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Commission: The recruiting authority (referred to as “the Commission”) responsible for the Assistant Teacher selection.
Counsel for Petitioners: Multiple senior advocates including Mr. Kumar Shivam, Mr. Rajarshi Singh, Mr. Sameer Ranjan, etc.
Counsel for Respondents: Senior advocates including Ms. Pallavi Langar, Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, and others.
Judges: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

Issues / Allegations / Violations

1. Miscellaneous Applications: Petitioners filed numerous IA (interim applications) seeking permission, clarification, exemption from filing residential address, condonation of delay, and intervention/impleadment concerning the execution of the 30‑Jan‑2025 judgment in CA 1298/2025.

2. Clarification Request: Petitioners claimed eligibility for recruitment under the extended timeline granted by the High Court, arguing the Supreme Court’s 30‑Jan‑2025 judgment should permit their participation.

3. Contempt Petitions: Alleged non‑compliance with the 30‑Jan‑2025 judgment in CA 1297/2025 regarding the preparation of the merit list for Assistant Teacher recruitment, specifically:

Migration of higher‑merit reserved‑category candidates to the unreserved list.
Failure to apply the minimum qualifying percentage marks stipulated in Paragraph 19(v) of the advertisement.
Improper verification of candidates’ certificates as per Paragraph 20.

Findings & Observations

The Court observed that the miscellaneous applications were not filed to correct clerical or arithmetic errors, nor did the petitioners demonstrate that the 30‑Jan‑2025 judgment had become non‑executable. Consequently, the applications were dismissed, with reference to the reportable judgment Fakir Mamad Suleman Sameja & Ors. v. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zones Ltd. & Ors. (12‑May‑2026, 2026 INSC 483).
Regarding the clarification application (Diary 39011/2025), the Court noted that the petitioners had applied during the extended recruitment period and that the High Court’s order was set aside. Hence, their plea could not be entertained.
In the contempt petitions, the Court examined the advertisement clauses:
Paragraph 19(iv): Allows reserved‑category candidates who qualify for unreserved posts to be placed in the merit list for unreserved posts, retaining their reservation status.
Paragraph 19(v): Specifies minimum qualifying percentages for each category (EWS 40 %, SC/ST/Women 32 %, MBC 34 %, BC‑2 36.5 %, Primitive Tribe 30 %). Candidates below these thresholds must be excluded from the merit list.
Paragraph 20: Requires verification of certificates; if a candidate’s eligibility cannot be established, lower‑ranked candidates may be called.
The Court concluded that the merit list must be prepared strictly in accordance with these clauses, and any deviation constitutes non‑compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

1. Delay Condoned: For Diary Nos. 48396/2025, 31001/2025, and 39011/2025, the Court condoned the filing delays.

2. Dismissal of Applications: All miscellaneous applications were dismissed; any pending applications, including those for intervention/impleadment, stand disposed of.

3. Commission’s Compliance Reply: The Commission is directed to file a fresh reply indicating compliance with the observations made, within four weeks from the order date.

4. Withdrawal of SLPs: The petitioners may withdraw SLP(C) Nos. 25455/2025 and 25459/2025 and, if desired, apply for a review before the High Court.

5. Rejoinder Period: Any rejoinder to the Commission’s reply must be filed within two weeks after the reply is submitted.

6. Hearing Postponement: The next hearing is postponed for six weeks, with the updated merit list to be filed on 20 July 2026.

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

The Commission must:
Re‑draw the merit list adhering to the minimum qualifying percentages and migration rules stipulated in Paragraph 19.
Verify certificates as per Paragraph 20 and invite lower‑ranked candidates where necessary.
Submit a detailed compliance reply (and, if required, a counter‑affidavit) within the four‑week deadline.
Petitioners may file a rejoinder within two weeks of the Commission’s reply.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

All miscellaneous applications filed by the petitioners are dismissed; delays are condoned.
The Court’s directions on merit‑list preparation are binding on the Commission, with a compliance deadline of four weeks.
The contempt petitions remain pending pending the Commission’s response; the matter will be revisited after the six‑week adjournment.
The petitioners are permitted to withdraw their Special Leave Petitions and may seek a review before the High Court.
The next procedural step is the filing of the updated merit list by 20 July 2026.