JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Since all these writ petitions have common issues involved; accordingly, with consent of the rival parties, all were heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. A scanning of prayers made in the above writ petitions including W.P.S. No. 582/2023 (which has been taken as a ‘Lead Case’ for the purpose of reffering to the averments made in the respective affidavits); the writ petitioners have prayed for consideration of their candidature for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in the respective subjects in which they have applied pursuant to Advertisement No. 21/2016 and in terms of order dated 02.08.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4038/2022 & analogous cases read with the order dated 02.12.2022 & 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 & analogous cases; wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the State Government to “revise the merit list based on the already published cut off obtained by the last selected candidate in each TGT subject against the respective categories with respect to entire State.” The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of appropriate directions commanding upon the respondents to appoint all the petitioners on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in their respective subjects in pursuance of Advertisement No. 21/2016 because they have scored more marks than the marks of the last selected candidates in their respective categories. 3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj & Tejaswita Safalta while advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioners argued that all the petitioners have been participants in the recruitment process conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred as JSSC) which took place in the light of Advertisement no. 21/2016 dated 28.12.2016 for the appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in various subjects. It has been contended that the petitioners have obtained higher marks than those candidates who have been appointed and they have been wrongfully left out leading to violation of the petitioners’ rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While referring to the various orders passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 1387 of 2017; Soni Kumari and other batch matters, and by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022; Satyajit Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. dated 02.08.2022 (Annexure-6), Order dated 02.12.2022 passed in Contempt Pet. While referring to the various orders passed by this Court in W.P.C. No. 1387 of 2017; Soni Kumari and other batch matters, and by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022; Satyajit Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. dated 02.08.2022 (Annexure-6), Order dated 02.12.2022 passed in Contempt Pet. (C) No. 612/2022 and Order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Pet. (C) No. 612/2022 vehemently argued that the Respondent JSSC as well as the State Respondents were duty bound to prepare the “Revised Merit List” for the whole State and other lists for the purpose of filing up of the entire remaining vacancies as per the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment dated 02.08.2022 read with the subsequent orders dated 02.12.2022 and 15.12.2022 but Respondents have completely breached the directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in fact; no such “Merit List” as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court has been prepared and published; thus, it is not certain as to who have been appointed when; and who actually have been appointed prior to the date referred to by the Hon’ble Apex Court and are protected. He further contended that, similarly, it is also highly uncertain and unclear as to how many persons have been appointed in the name of the “Original Petitioners” in regards to whom directions were given by the Hon’ble Apex Court to appoint in the hierarchy and manner as directed by order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Pet. (C) No. 612 of 2022. It has further been argued that the respondents have acted in a haphazard and pick and choose manner and thereby they have caused gross injustice to the petitioners who all have obtained higher marks, than the cut-off marks already prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the persons who have obtained lower marks than the petitioners, have been appointed in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Ld. Sr. Counsel has referred to the pleadings made in the writ petitions as well as supplementary affidavits dated 23.09.2024 (para 21) and 12.12.2024 (para 23) to argue that gross irregularities have been committed causing serious discrimination with the meritorious petitioners and there are large number of non-deserving and less meritorious persons who have been favoured with appointments. 4. Ld. Sr. Counsel has referred to the pleadings made in the writ petitions as well as supplementary affidavits dated 23.09.2024 (para 21) and 12.12.2024 (para 23) to argue that gross irregularities have been committed causing serious discrimination with the meritorious petitioners and there are large number of non-deserving and less meritorious persons who have been favoured with appointments. 4. While taking reference of various orders passed by this Court in these batch of cases, including the orders dated 18.07.2023, 19.06.2024, 05.08.2024, 05.09.2024, 06.09.2024, 24.10.2024, 07.04.2025 and 25.07.2025, he argued that in-spite of repeated orders and directions given by this Court, the Respondents have failed to bring forth the ‘Revised Merit list’ as was directed to be prepared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and they have also not produced the correct data as desired by this Court, thus it is clear and evident that the Respondents have acted wrongfully and while offering appointments to the less meritorious persons; the petitioners who are having higher merit marks have been discriminated. 5. While drawing attention of this Court and placing heavy reliance on the State’s own Resolution dated 23.02.2024 which has been issued in the name of the Governor of Jharkhand, Mr. Kumar argued that as per Clause 4 of the said Resolution it was the own stand of the State Government that altogether 17784 posts for the purpose of appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teachers in the Middle Schools were requisitioned from JSSC and as against the Advertisement No. 21/2016, only 9916 recommendations were made. Further as per the said Resolution the total appointments till the date of Resolution had been to the tune of 8171 only. While comparing the said figures with the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent no. 2 and 4 dated 30.07.2025, the Ld. Sr. Counsel has pointed out that as per the said affidavit, when the total appointments up to 18.09.2019 has been shown to be 8214 and if other 614 persons were appointed in between 19.09.2019 to 02.08.2022, thus, as per the said affidavit, total number of appointments already made up to 02.08.2022 comes to 8828. Mr. Kumar argued that in view of the above, either the figures mentioned in the State Resolution dated 23.02.2024 stands false or if it is not so; the counter affidavit of the Respondent no. 2 and 4 dated 30.07.2025 depicts a misleading and fictitious figure. Mr. Kumar argued that in view of the above, either the figures mentioned in the State Resolution dated 23.02.2024 stands false or if it is not so; the counter affidavit of the Respondent no. 2 and 4 dated 30.07.2025 depicts a misleading and fictitious figure. He further contended that if as per the Resolution of the State Government the total appointments up to February 2024 had been only 8171; how a claim of 8828 appointments already made up to 02.08.2022 can be accepted particularly when no revised “Merit List” and other merit lists have been produced before this Court despite of the repeated directions given in these proceedings. 6. Ld. Senior Counsel has also drawn this Court’s attention to the list of candidates and details furnished by the Respondents in four volumes to argue that the Hon’ble Apex Court had in paragraph 27 of its judgement rendered in the case of Satyajit Kumar and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand, Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 categorically observed and directed that the persons already appointed in the scheduled districts/areas who are already working for three years are to be protected and a fresh selection list based on revised merit and based on already published cut-off obtained by the last selected candidate in each TGT subject against respective categories has to be prepared for further appointments. He further argued while referring to paragraph 28 of the said judgement and contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court had categorically directed that instead of fresh/de- novo recruitment process by setting aside the appointments already made in the scheduled districts/areas the state shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut-off obtained by the last selected candidates in each TGT subject against the respective categories with respect to entire state and respective candidates belonging to the non-scheduled areas and scheduled areas (districts) shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of individual merit of the candidates; thus, the Respondents were duty bound to prepare a “Revised Merit List” as directed. 7. While further referring to the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), the Ld. 7. While further referring to the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), the Ld. Senior Counsel argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court had already ordered that the State has to prepare a merit list of those candidates who were actually appointed both in the scheduled area and non-scheduled area and then the adjustment of more meritorious candidates had to be made amongst the non-scheduled and scheduled area. He also argues that as per the same order dated 02.12.2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court had also directed for preparation of a separate merit list of those original writ petitioners who approached the High Court and appointments and/or adjustments of those original writ petitioners had to be made as per merit and it was made absolutely clear that except for those who did not approach the High Court, the benefit of the order of the Apex Court shall not be given to them. 8. Ld. Senior Counsel has reiterated that the respondents have not prepared the revised merit list as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgement dated 02.08.2022 and the merit list as directed by the said court vide order dated 02.12.2022, has not been prepared just to accommodate the chosen candidates and as per him this aspect is fortified due to the fact that the respondents have failed to produce such revised “State-wise merit list” in spite of repeated directions of this court. It has also been submitted that in the light of the orders and directions as contained in the main judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 02.08.2022 read with orders dated 02.12.2022 and 15.12.2022, the respondents should have first prepared the revised merit list for filling up of the left over vacancies; thereafter, they should have also prepared separate merit list of the already appointed candidates and original writ petitioners and then appointments ought to have been made as per the manner and hierarchy as enumerated in the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022, but, the respondents have acted in breach of the said directions for oblique motives and gross injustice has been done to the present writ petitioners as they have been discarded and the less meritorious persons have been chosen to be appointed while denying appointments to the meritorious candidates. 9. 9. While referring to the lists submitted by the respondents which runs in four volumes, Ld. Sr. Counsel has pointed out and argued that the said lists of candidates cannot be said to be the ‘revised merit list’ or ‘merit list’ of the ‘already appointed persons’ or the merit list of ‘original writ petitioners’ as was indicated in the judgment/orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Mr. Kumar has made serious assertions with respect to the said list of 13961 candidates to criticise the same on the ground that the said lists are full of errors and misleading information which according to him has been done with oblique motives and just to cover up the illegalities which has been committed by the respondents. While referring to various pages of the said lists which runs in four volumes, it has been pointed out that more than 900-1000 candidates are shown to be appointees as original petitioners which is a much higher figure and appears to be fictitious and misleading. Similarly, large number of candidates are shown to be appointees from district wise recommendations in the year 2019 itself; thus, protected while having less marks than the petitioners but in relation to various names such as at page no. 438/S. No. 5060 to 5064, page no. 489 to 515/S. No. 5667 to 5988 of volume-II, their marks have been mentioned in two digits and points which is impossible. In the same volume at page no. 229 to 283/S. No. 2554 to 3201 and likewise all details such as date of appointment, etc. have been shown blank. Furher, at page no. 438, page no. 157, page no. 181, page no. 207, page no. 342 and likewise in relation to several appointees of the year 2023 or 2024 marks obtained by them have not been given which all gives a complete misleading picture and raises serious doubt about the appointments made by the respondents. In volume-III also, similar page nos. such as 519, 480 520, 521, page no. 663 to 682, the names of the candidates have been pointed out whose marks have been given in two digits and points, similarly, names of such candidates and appointees of 2023/2024 have been shown from page no. 817 / S. No. 9606, page no. 911 / S. No. 10731, page no. 938/S. No. 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11072, 11073, page no. 817 / S. No. 9606, page no. 911 / S. No. 10731, page no. 938/S. No. 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11072, 11073, page no. 941/S. No. 11089,11097,11099,11100 and likewise against whom no marks is indicated. At page no. 1011/S. no. 11933 an appointee of 2023 is shown with all his columns blank. In volume-IV also, similar names have been pointed out to argue that the respondents have breached the very sanctity of the entire process to discard the petitioners and accommodate their chosen persons. He reiterated that the entire list running in 4 volumes is full of errors and cannot be treated to be the revised State-wise merit list or such merit list of already appointees or even the original petitioners as indicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the actions of the respondents must be put to serious scrutiny because the Constitutional Courts must ensure the protection as mandated under article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in this case, the respondents have completely breached the said equality clause of the Indian Constitution. 10. It has further been pointed out by the Ld. Sr. Counsel that the complete lists contains names and stray details of 13961 candidates only which includes all persons such as ‘already appointees’ as protected by the Hon’ble Apex Court; the ‘original writ petitioners’, and even the ‘appointees who are being claimed to be appointed after the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court’ and further the respondents are claiming to have surrendered 3704 vacancies on the ground that the candidates from reserved categories were not available in the concerned subjects. Ld. Sr. Counsel points out that the said lists of 13961 candidates even consist of 1915 such names who are shown to be absent or not-joined in 2019 itself; thus, effectively result of only 12046 candidates has been given and the respondents are not having any answer as to why petitioners have not been accommodated as per their merit against the said remaining vacancies in spite of specific directions of the Apex Court. 11. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Ld. Counsel representing another set of writ petitions has mainly adopted the arguments advanced by the Ld. 11. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Ld. Counsel representing another set of writ petitions has mainly adopted the arguments advanced by the Ld. Senior Counsel but he further added that as per the judgement and orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the subject-wise cut-off marks was already prescribed to be the lowest marks obtained by the last selected candidate in each subject in any of the district of the State, thus the JSSC could not have prescribed any other cut-off marks for their own convenience and they ought to have essentially prepared the revised State-wise merit list as per the directions given in judgement dated 02.08.2022 and other merit list as per the subsequent order dated 02.12.2022. As per him, the JSSC and State respondents have breached the prescribed norms and gross discrimination and prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by not offering them appointments when the less meritorious persons have been appointed. He further contended that there are sufficient number of vacancies even as per the respondents which they are duty-bound to fill up as per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 12. It has specifically been contended that gross irregularities and illegalities have been committed by the respondents, Firstly, by not preparing, publishing or presenting the revised State-wise merit list and other merit lists as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondents have grossly discriminated with the deserving and meritorious candidates like the petitioners. Secondly, in the name of ‘original petitioners’ various non-deserving candidates have been appointed. Thirdly, by including the names of ‘absentees or not joined candidates of the year 2019’ a misleading picture of vacancies having filed up has been given to this court. Fourthly, by not mentioning the marks or date of joining of large number of appointed candidates, necessary information has been suppressed to cover up the wrongful appointments already made by the respondents. Fourthly, by not mentioning the marks or date of joining of large number of appointed candidates, necessary information has been suppressed to cover up the wrongful appointments already made by the respondents. Fifthly, by including the names of such candidates whose candidature was already rejected by the respondent JSSC on deficiency of eligibility or documents, gross injustice has been done to the petitioners and Finally, while ignoring the petitioners who have obtained marks higher than the cut-off marks, the respondents have chosen to favour less meritorious candidates and thereby the Constitutional mandate of Article 14 and 16 has been breached; thus, the action of the respondents be deprecated and a through enquiry by way of appointing a Judicial Commission or through independent agency be ordered and Mandamus be issued upon the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners, if and only if, they are above in merit and are also fulfilling other requisite qualifications and conditions for being appointed on the advertised posts. Learned Counsels appearing in the other writ petitions have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Kumar & Mr. Sinha. 13. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Ld. Advocate General has represented the State respondents as well as the JSSC assisted by Mr. Sanjoy Pipperwal, has argued that all appointments have been made as per the orders and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. He emphatically aserted that every data and information as directed by this Court has been presented in the form of affidavits filed before this Court and the list of 13961 which has been presented in 4 volumes is indeed the revised State-wise merit list, thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. On being confronted with the specific arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners regarding number of mistakes in the list of 13961 candidates and inclusion of large numbers of absent and not joining candidates of the year 2019; Ld. A.G. admitted that the lists does contain mistakes as pointed out but in order to justify such mistakes he stated that since the details were collected from various districts of the State; such typographical errors might have taken place which can be ignored. 14. It has been further submitted by the Ld. A.G. admitted that the lists does contain mistakes as pointed out but in order to justify such mistakes he stated that since the details were collected from various districts of the State; such typographical errors might have taken place which can be ignored. 14. It has been further submitted by the Ld. Advocate General that State had to essentially prescribe a new State- wise and subject-wise cut-off marks for filing up of the available vacancies after the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court because the number of candidates had been large and the vacancies were limited. However, he could not give a cogent answer on the issue of inclusion of 1915 candidates who were absent or did not join in the year 2019 yet were included in the so-called merit list. Ld. Advocate General has not explained as to why such large number of vacancies are shown as occupied by the absentees or not joined candidates of the year 2019 and why those vacancies have not been offered to genuine and meritorious candidates. He only reiterated that since the details were collected from various districts of the State; such typographical errors might have taken place which can be ignored, and further during course of argument, he produced some documents trying to impress this Court about rectifying the error which happened only due to the reason that the data were prepared at the district level. He emphatically submitted that there is no error in the entire appointment process and the State wise merit list has been prepared strictly in the adherence to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred cases and, no any candidate can show that he/she is having higher marks than the cut-off marks. 15. When confronted with the arguemts on the point of independent enquiry and/or appointment of Judicial Commission for scruitiny in the matter; Ld. Advocate General opposed such scheme; however, suggested that the petitioners may be given option to make representations before the Secretary, JSSC and if the petitioners or any of the candidates would be able to make out a valid claim, the State Government shall certainly do justice with them. 16. With respect to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners in relation to the serious disparities in the figures mentioned in the State’s resolution dated 23.02.2024 vis-a-vis the latest affidavit of the respondents (filed on 30.07.2025), Ld. 16. With respect to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners in relation to the serious disparities in the figures mentioned in the State’s resolution dated 23.02.2024 vis-a-vis the latest affidavit of the respondents (filed on 30.07.2025), Ld. Advocate General stated that the State’s resolution was issued on some other subject, i.e. conversion of the posts from policy head to non-policy head; thus, the contention of the petitioners is misconceived and misleading this Court. 17. In rejoinder to the arguments advanced on behalf of JSSC and State respondents, Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that while the respondents are admitting their mistakes as contained in the so called result which they have produced before this Court in four volumes, they have failed to appreciate that such mistakes are in fact innumerable and apart from that large number of vacancies have been shown to be occupied by absentees and not joined persons in the year 2019 itself. Ld. Senior Counsel also argued that the mistakes may even be deliberate act of the JSSC or State stakeholders which is resulting in premium to the non- deserving candidates and causing injustice to the petitioners who are before this Court by way of filing large number of writ petitions. 18. Heard learned counsels for the rival parties at length and perused the documents available on record. The facts of the case are that JSSC acting in pursuant to Jharkhand Government High School Teaching and Non- Teaching Staff Appointment and Service Condition Rules, 2015 floated an Advertisement No. 21/2016 for Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination 2016 (CGTTCE-2016) for appointment on 17786 posts of Graduate Trained Teachers. Out of 17786 advertised posts:- ? 13399 posts for the direct recruitment ? Out of 17786 advertised posts:- ? 13399 posts for the direct recruitment ? 4387 posts for working Primary Trained Teachers A dispute cropped up with respect to appointment in Schedule districts vis a vis the restrictions imposed upon the candidates to apply only from one district and W.P. (C) No. 1387/2017 (Soni Kumari & others vs. State of Jharkhand & others) with several analogous cases were filed before the Jharkhand High Court challenging the Notification No. 5938 dated 14.07.2016; wherein a decision has been taken that in 13 Scheduled Districts of the State only local residents of the concerned districts shall be eligible to be appointed on the District Cadre Class-III and Class-IV posts for a period of 10 years from the date of publication of the notification. 19. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2019 stayed the operation of the Notification No. 5938 dated 14.07.2016, subject to the appointments already made, if any, and further referred the matter to Larger Bench. The Larger Bench vide judgment dated 21.09.2020 allowed the writ petitions and quashed notification no. 5938 dated 14.07.2016 and further directed that fresh selection process be undertaken in 8423 posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in the Government Secondary Schools in the scheduled districts. 20. The judgment/order dated 21.09.2020 was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4038/2022 (Satyajit Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), Civil Appeal No. 4044/2022 (Soni Kumari vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and analogous cases and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment & order dated 02.08.2022 partially upheld the judgment dated 21.09.2020 & partially modified the same. Para 28 of the Hon’ble Apex Court order dated 02.08.2022 directed as under:- “It is now directed that instead of fresh/de novo recruitment process by setting aside the appointments already made in the Scheduled Districts/Areas, the State shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut off obtained by the last selected candidates in each TGT subject against the respective categories with respect to entire State and respective candidates belonging to the non- Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Areas (Districts) shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of individual merit of the candidates. The present directions are issued considering the facts peculiar and circumstances of the case and more particularly considering the fact that there are already vacant posts of teachers in the State (in both Scheduled and non-Scheduled Area). [Emphasis Supplied] 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its subsequent order 487 dated 02.12.2022 passed in Contempt petition (C) No. 612/2022 in C.A No. 4044/2022; Soni Kumari vs K. Ravi Kumar & Ors. passed the following order: “Let the State prepare a merit list of those candidates who were actually appointed both in the Scheduled Area and Non-Scheduled area. Thereafter, whoever a candidate in the Non-Scheduled area is found to be more meritorious than the last candidate in the Scheduled Area of which he has given option, then that candidate in the Non-Scheduled area be adjusted in the concerned Scheduled Area as per his merits and the last candidate in that Scheduled Area have to be reshuffled and adjusted in another district, among those who are already appointed. Similarly, with respect to those original writ petitioners, who approached the High Court, their merit list also be prepared by the State Government and they may accordingly be appointed and/or adjusted in the concerned Non-Scheduled or Scheduled District as per their merits. However, it is specifically observed that except those who did not approach the High Court, the benefit of this order shall not be given to them.” [Emphasis Supplied] 22. However, it is specifically observed that except those who did not approach the High Court, the benefit of this order shall not be given to them.” [Emphasis Supplied] 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court further vide order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 clarified its instructions and issued some more directions, indicating the manner in which the respondents had to fill up the vacancies and held as under: “We pass further following order in furtherance of our earlier judgment and order dated 02.08.2022 as well as subsequent order dated 02.12.2022, as under: 1) That the State shall prepare merit list state-wise pursuant to the applications already invited; 2) That the candidates who already applied for scheduled area and they were not offered appointments in the scheduled area in view of earlier notification which has been struck down, they may be adjusted as per the earlier judgment and order dated 02.08.2022; 3) Thereafter, the appointment to be made with respect to 425 candidates who were the original writ petitioners before the High Court as well as in whose favour subsequently some orders are passed by the High Court; 4) That thereafter the remaining vacant posts meant for direct recruitment (75%) shall be filled in absolutely on the basis of merit as per the state wise merit list and subject wise and after following due procedure as required, namely, counselling etc.; 5) Thereafter, so far as the posts remain vacant meant for promotion (25%) are concerned, the same may be filled in by operating the State wise merit list in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, if any candidate for the promotional quota is not available, in that case the remaining vacancies be filled in according to proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules, 2015. However, it is made clear that the merit list be operated and the appointments be made restricted to the total vacancies advertised/notified, i.e., 17,786 posts only. It is also made clear that High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. …………...” 23. However, it is made clear that the merit list be operated and the appointments be made restricted to the total vacancies advertised/notified, i.e., 17,786 posts only. It is also made clear that High Court shall not pass any contrary order with respect to the recruitment in question. …………...” 23. Thus, after going through the above orders it is crystal clear that the respondents had to first of all comply with the above referred directions as contained in judgment dated 02.08.2022 and prepare a revised merit list for the whole State including the Scheduled districts as well as non- scheduled districts on the basis of the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in each subject in any of the districts of the State and based on such revised merit list, the appointments had to be made to fill up all the available vacancies. Further, as per the above referred orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 02.12.2022, the respondents were supposed to prepare the separate merit list of already appointed candidates in the scheduled as well as non- scheduled districts and the adjustments of the candidates had to be made as per directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. As per the same very order dated 02.12.2022, above referred respondents were also supposed to prepare a merit list of the original writ petitioners as indicated in the said order and there could not be any inclusion of other candidates who were not original petitioners. In view of the directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondents had no other options but to fill up the available vacancies as per the judgement dated 02.08.2022 in the manner and sequence as was outlined in the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 15.12.2022. 24. It is also worth noting that after disposal of Contempt Petition (C) No. 612/2022 and analogous cases, various Miscellaneous Applications were filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court with a prayer for consideration of the candidature of the applicants. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court disposed of those applications with the observation that there are still vacant posts of Trained Graduate Teachers and there are several writ petitions which are pending before the Jharkhand High Court and further stated that liberty is reserved to the applicants to seek appropriate remedies before the Jharkhand High Court and further the respondents were directed to fill the vacancies. 25. 25. It appears that these batch of writ petitions were listed before this court on various dates and for the purpose of resolving the issues involved in these cases directions were also passed asking the respondents to produce the merit lists and other details so that the contentions of the petitioners may be properly addressed. The order dated 19.06.2024 passed by this Court in these batch of matters reads as under:– “2. During the course of hearing, it transpired that essentially the matter relates to implementation of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that the persons who were already appointed in the case of Soni Kumari and other analogous cases their appointments have been saved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and there is specific direction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India with regard to filling up of the remaining vacant advertised posts and for that purpose the learned counsels have submitted that state wise merit list with respect to each subject and further bifurcation category wise is required to be prepared by the respondent-JSSC. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-JSSC has submitted that though different cut off marks for different categories and for different subjects is there in different districts of the State of Jharkhand, but in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a state wise merit list is to be prepared and the minimum cut-off marks of last selected 490 candidates in each subject and under each category is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, from amongst the various districts whatever be the minimum cut-off marks of the last selected candidates (category wise and subject wise) , the same would be the basis for the preparation of merit list for those candidates who have received marks above such cut-off marks and after preparation of state wise merit list, the recommendation is to be made on the basis of such merit list. The learned counsel submits that the selection process is going on and a number of candidates have already been appointed in terms of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. ………………………………………………………………………. 5. This batch of writ petitions involves case of different candidates who have applied under different subjects in the said recruitment process. 6. The learned counsel submits that the selection process is going on and a number of candidates have already been appointed in terms of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. ………………………………………………………………………. 5. This batch of writ petitions involves case of different candidates who have applied under different subjects in the said recruitment process. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC is directed to seek instructions and file merit list with respect to each subject [ subject wise and category wise] which have been prepared pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The affidavit should clearly indicate the cut-off marks of the last selected candidate district wise and category wise in each subject so that the cut-off marks which has been taken for the entire State of Jharkhand for each subject will also reflect in the counter-affidavit. 7. The counter-affidavit should be filed in W.P. (S) No. 3273 of 2023 and the said affidavit will be considered in all the cases involved in this batch of cases.” 26. Further, on 05.08.2024 this Court had passed another specific order in the matter of “State Wise Merit List” which reads as under:- “4. After much deliberation with respect to implementation of the Hon’ble Apex Court order, this Court is of the view that the entire controversy with regard to consideration will be resolved by publishing the State wise merit list on the concerned website of the respondent-JSSC. 5. Mr. Piprawall, learned counsel representing the Respondent- JSSC fairly submits that since the software which is already available with the JSSC is not up to the mark and they will require about 10 days upgrading its software and uploading the said State wise merit list. 6. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners do not have any serious objection. 7. Accordingly, this court directs that the respondent JSSC shall publish/upload the State-wise merit list strictly in the compliance to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court which has been referred to hereinabove within a period of 2 weeks from today. All the individual petitioners are directed to see the website after publication of the State wise merit list in each subject and they will verify their own result and come prepared on the next date of hearing, if at all, their cases are required to be considered. 8. All the individual petitioners are directed to see the website after publication of the State wise merit list in each subject and they will verify their own result and come prepared on the next date of hearing, if at all, their cases are required to be considered. 8. It goes without saying that the above State-wise merit list which is to be uploaded on website is with respect to those subjects for which results are already published and appointments are going on and it is not for those subjects where the result is not at all published and the process is underway.” 27. On 05.09.2024, this Court had to again reiterate its earlier orders by even quoting the earlier directions as respondents failed to comply the earlier orders. The said order dated 05.09.2024 reads as under:- “2. In paragraph No.7 of the earlier order, the respondent-JSSC was directed to publish /upload the State-wise merit list strictly in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is referred to hereinabove within a period of two weeks and the case was posted for today i.e. on 05.09.2024. 3. Today, Mr. Innocent Tudu, who is from the office of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (In short JSSC), who claims to be competent and possess all requisite knowledge is also present with Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel representing JSSC. In order to assist this Court, two staffs from the registry/CPC, Jharkhand High Court, are also present to open the website of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission in order to peruse the State-wise merit list; however, after going through the website, it appears that the State-wise merit list has not yet been uploaded on the website. 4. Mr. Innocent Tudu fairly submitted before this Court that the website will only show the Scorecard of the respective applicant with cut off marks of each category. 5. This was never the object of this Court nor was it the intent of the order dated 5th August, 2024. The aforesaid order passed on 5th August, 2024, was made pursuant to grave apprehension of learned counsels for the respective petitioners about mass-bungling and breach of Hon’ble Apex Court’s order in not publishing the State-Wise Merit List and 11 continued with the appointment process. 6. At this stage Mr. Piparwal, Ld. The aforesaid order passed on 5th August, 2024, was made pursuant to grave apprehension of learned counsels for the respective petitioners about mass-bungling and breach of Hon’ble Apex Court’s order in not publishing the State-Wise Merit List and 11 continued with the appointment process. 6. At this stage Mr. Piparwal, Ld. Counsel for the JSSC submitted that the State wise Merit List will be uploaded today / tomorrow, which clearly shows that the JSSC not only had the wherewithal to publish the same and the only conclusion that can be arrived at this stage is that they did not intend to comply with the order deliberately with some ulterior motive. Therefore, the aforesaid order has not been complied in any manner. 7. Forced with this situation, the Chairman-JSSC is directed to appear in person tomorrow i.e., on 06.09.2024 at 11:30 A.M. to show cause as to why the order passed by this Court has not been complied with by publishing/uploading the “State-Wise Merit List” and why not a contempt proceeding be initiated against him for deliberately flouting the order; not of this Court only, but also of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It goes without saying that the representative of respondent-JSSC itself, before this Court, has categorically stated that only Score Card of a candidate is uploaded and State-wise merit list has not yet been uploaded on the website which became evident from perusal of the JSSC website. 8. List this case tomorrow i.e., on 06.09.2024 at 11:30 A.M. 9. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Office of the learned Advocate General, who shall also be present in order to assist this Court.” 28. Again on 06.09.2024 this Court had to pass the following order:- “2. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General submits that there was some confusion and that is why the state wise merit list was not uploaded and the commission has given something more which was more beneficial for the individual candidates like individual marks, cut-off marks and log-in facility to them. However, he fairly submits that after last day’s order, within a couple of hours, the same has been uploaded. He further tendered the show-cause filed on behalf of respondent no.5, Chairman-JSSC which was pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2024 and the same is taken on record. 3. However, he fairly submits that after last day’s order, within a couple of hours, the same has been uploaded. He further tendered the show-cause filed on behalf of respondent no.5, Chairman-JSSC which was pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2024 and the same is taken on record. 3. So far as show cause filed by the Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission is concerned; the same will be taken up for hearing on the next date of hearing. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing in few of the writ applications, tries to point out certain discrepancies and submits that some clarifications are required in the State Wise Merit List, for that he prays a short indulgence for filing an affidavit. 5. At this stage it is relevant to indicate that admittedly, State Wise Merit List has been published on 05.09.2024, which was 493 the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 02.12.2022 and the same was reiterated by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19th June, 2024 and also by this Court, a month before and again yesterday.” 29. Yet, again on 26.09.2024, the issue of ‘State Merit List’ was the bone of contention of the parties and this court had to say and observe as below:- “At the very outset, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that though the State has come out with the State-merit list but the same has not been prepared as per the direction and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that name of persons having less marks than the petitioners find place in the merit list whereas in case of petitioners, though they have obtained more marks, they have not been considered for appointment. Learned Advocate General submits that State-wise merit list has been prepared in strict compliance of the order and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned Advocate General submits that State-wise merit list has been prepared in strict compliance of the order and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Without delving deep into the merit of the case, since State-wise merit list has already been prepared and published, I hereby direct the respondent-State as well as respondent-JSSC to come out with category wise and subject wise cut off marks of the candidates who have been declared successful and come within the zone of consideration and whether any person has been appointed till date or not against remaining vacancies i.e. 8,160 (approx.) in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the same time petitioners are also directed to prepare a common chart showing marks obtained by them and cut off marks of the concerned subjects and the same be handed over to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners of the lead case and also a copy of the same be handed over to the office of Advocate General and learned counsel appearing on behalf of 6 Jharkhand Staff Service Commission by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners of the lead case.” 30. Again on 24.10.2024, this Court had to observe and direct as under:- 2. The matters were taken up on 26.09.2024 and there was specific direction given to the respondents to bring on record the chart showing the marks obtained by the candidates and cut off marks of the concerned subjects. No affidavit has been filed to that effect. However, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC has come with the detailed chart in compliance of the order dated 26.09.2024. 3. More than thousands of the petitioners have approached this Court. Time and again, several directions have been made to the respondents to come out with an affidavit showing the subject-wise and category-wise cut off marks of the candidates to be appointed against the leftover seats in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612 of 2002, arising out of Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 2022. Referring to the documents produced before this Court, which has also been supplied to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, argument has been advanced by Mr. Referring to the documents produced before this Court, which has also been supplied to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, argument has been advanced by Mr. Sanjay Piprawall that 9626 candidates were recommended for appointment which are now protected in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. Satyajit Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022. It was submission of Mr. Piprawall that there are 425 candidates who approached the High Court or Supreme Court in the case of Soni Kumari & Ors. and order has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to consider their cases first vide order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Cont. Petition (C) No. 612 of 2022 and after passing of the order by the Supreme Court, JSSC has already recommended a total of 4429 posts, which includes the original petitioners. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has 6 refuted the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC and submits that the candidates having more marks than the last selected candidates on the basis of State merit list have been denied appointment. To fortify his contention, learned senior counsel refers page-36 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 21.10.2024 and submits that petitioner no.1 Md. Iqbal Hussain and petitioner no.2 Sunil Kumar of W.P.(S) No. 301 of 2023 are the example before this Court as to how the respondents have acted upon. Petitioner-Md. Iqbal Hussain has obtained 238 marks in subject Urdu under EBC-I category, whereas 12 candidates falling in the category of EBC-I have been appointed having less marks than the petitioner. Similarly, petitioner no. 2 Sunil Kumar, who has obtained 184 marks under EBC-I category in subject Geography has been denied appointment whereas other 36 candidates have been appointed who have obtained less marks than the petitioner. Similar is the position in case of several other candidates, who have obtained more marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories and subjects. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counsel that total 4429 candidates have been recommended and appointed prior to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. Controverting the aforesaid submissions, Mr. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counsel that total 4429 candidates have been recommended and appointed prior to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5. Controverting the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Piprawall submits that no candidate having lesser marks than the last selected candidates on the basis of the State wise merit list have been recommended for appointment and the petitioners cannot equate their cases with the original 425 petitioners or the candidates who have been recommended for appointment on the basis of district wise merit list and protected by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Looking into the contradictory stands of the parties and for just adjudication of the matter, this Court directs the respondent-State and the respondent-JSSC to bring on record, the real facts by way of affidavit with supportive documents on the following points:- (i) As to how many candidates have been recommended / appointed prior to passing of the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyajit 7 Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. rendered in Civil Appeal No. 4038 of 2022 (ii) As to how many candidates in different subjects and categories have been recommended in view of the marks / rank secured by them in State level merit list prepared after the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 612 of 2022 (iii) What is the category wise and subject wise cut off marks in the State merit list in each category and subject prepared in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. On the cost of repetition, the respondent-JSSC is directed to file a comprehensive reply to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners on 21.10.2024, in which averments have been made that the petitioners, having more marks than the recommended / appointed candidates, have been denied appointment. Additionally, the respondent JSCC is directed to produce before this Court the details of all the recommendations for appointment made on the basis of the State wise merit list in sealed cover. 8. Similarly, the respondent-State shall also file a specific affidavit meeting out the aforesaid queries including date-wise, category-wise and subject-wise details of the candidates who have been appointed following the recommendation of the JSSC and also the details of the candidates, who have not joined to the recommended post. 8. Similarly, the respondent-State shall also file a specific affidavit meeting out the aforesaid queries including date-wise, category-wise and subject-wise details of the candidates who have been appointed following the recommendation of the JSSC and also the details of the candidates, who have not joined to the recommended post. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents are directed to serve a copy of the specific affidavit meeting out the aforesaid queries to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior advocate well in advance, so that the reply thereto, if any, shall also be filed by the petitioners before listing of the case.” 31. Yet again on 28.11.2024, same very stance was taken and this Court had to pass an order which reads as under: “2. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents makes a fair submission that all the appointments have been made in consonance with the order and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, he prays for time to file specific affidavit regarding queries made by this Court on the previous date of hearing. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since several posts are still vacant and petitioners have scored more marks than the selected candidates their candidature ought to have been considered by the respondents. Learned senior counsel further argues that even the cut-off marks has not been fixed as per the order and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has also been argued that figures given by the respondent State regarding protected candidates are not in consonance with the order and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, same needs rectification. It has been further argued that the appointments be made strictly in consonance with the order and direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 02.08.2022, learned senior counsel submits that only in scheduled districts, the appointments already made upto 02.08.2022 have been protected and those appointments after 02.08.2022 cannot be said to be protected. 4. Mr. Relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 02.08.2022, learned senior counsel submits that only in scheduled districts, the appointments already made upto 02.08.2022 have been protected and those appointments after 02.08.2022 cannot be said to be protected. 4. Mr. Rajiv Nanda, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners have qualified and are possessing requisite qualification to be appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) and also in view of the fact that the matter has been kept pending for long years since 2016-17, they have become overage, their candidature should be considered, as many vacancies are still available, which have been surrendered by the State without any specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by this Court. 5. Having heard the parties at length across the Bar, this Court is of the view that suffice it would be if a direction is given to the respective counsel including the learned Advocate General to file specific affidavit meeting out the queries made by this Court. The affidavits filed by the respective parties shall be exchanged and if required, reply to that effect be also filed. Parties are at liberty to file written notes of arguments. The affidavits be filed and exchanged before 10.12.2024.” 32. Lastly on 07.04.2025, this Court had to pass specific orders directing the respondents to furnish requisite data and the same very order was reiterated on 25.07.2025 as the earlier order was not complied. The order dated 25.07.2025 reads as under: “2. At the outset, Mr. Ajit Kumar draws attention of this Court towards the order dated 07.04.2025; wherein the Respondents-JPSC/State were directed to furnish the information with regard to certain facts. For brevity relevant part of the order is quoted hereinbelow: - “07.04.2025: 2. Heard, learned counsel for the parties at length. The respondents-JPSC/State will furnish the following information’s in a tabular form in respect of each of the writ petitioner: - 3. Further another chart will be furnished giving the following information in tubular form:- 4. List these cases on 08.05.2025 as the first cast at the top of the list. 5. Mr. Heard, learned counsel for the parties at length. The respondents-JPSC/State will furnish the following information’s in a tabular form in respect of each of the writ petitioner: - 3. Further another chart will be furnished giving the following information in tubular form:- 4. List these cases on 08.05.2025 as the first cast at the top of the list. 5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel while referring to the aforesaid direction draws attention of this court towards the supplementary counter affidavit filed pursuant to the aforesaid order and submits that this court has directed the Respondent to give the details with regard to date of his/her appointment letter, but for the reasons best known to the respondents; Annexure-1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit depicts the column as date of recommendation letter. This creates a doubt in the mind of the petitioners as to why instead of giving the date of appointment letter they are giving the date of recommendation letter. 6. Learned Advocate General submits these batch of cases may be heard individually and on the next date of hearing they will furnish the record, if so directed. 7. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases when there was a specific direction of this Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 to give the information with regards to marks of last selected candidate in the category of the Petitioner whose appointment has been saved by the order of Hon’ble Apex Court and the date of his/her appointment letter; why the respondent has given the statement with regard to date of his/her recommendation letter. 8. Accordingly, it is now necessary to direct the Respondents to depute an officer with all relevant records on the next date of hearing in order to substantiate and counter the grievance of these petitioners, failing which the court will proceed in the matter on the basis of available records.” 33. A scanning of the above orders passed by this Court in these batch of cases clearly depicts a very sorry- state of affairs because this Court had to pass repeated orders for even publication of merit lists which is otherwise the basic duty and responsibility of the respondents JSSC and the State authorities. The respondents have submitted various lists and have published and produced a list running in 4 volumes on 05.09.2024, after much delay and only after stringent orders/directions passed by this Court. The respondents have submitted various lists and have published and produced a list running in 4 volumes on 05.09.2024, after much delay and only after stringent orders/directions passed by this Court. It appears that the petitioners who know their individual marks are aggrieved because the respondents are giving conflicting or no details of those candidates who are having higher/lesser marks than them and being indicated as already appointed or protected candidates. Similarly, in these lists, large number of candidates are shown as “original petitioners” without disclosing their correct details. Even in relation to the large number of names of appointees who have been appointed after the Judgements/orders of the Apex Court, the respondents have given incomplete or no details which raises serious doubts. It may be evident from the details of recommendations and appointments as mentioned in the said lists that respondent JSSC/State are claiming to have issued such recommendations and appointments even prior to the publication of the lists, yet the respondents appear to be claiming these lists to be the ‘State Wise Merit list’ as was directed to be prepared by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 02.08.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4038/2022 (Satyajit Kumar & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand). 34. This Court is bound to take serious notice of this fact that in-spite of various and repeated orders passed by this Court; the respondents have failed to publish and produce the ‘State Wise Merit List’ which they were bound to prepare before making appointments as per the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 02.08.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 4038/2022 (Satyajit Kumar & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand). The ‘Merit List’ as was directed to be prepared as per orders dated 02.12.2022 & 15.12.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 612/2022 (Soni Kumari v. K. Ravi Kumar & Ors.) have also not been produced or brought on record. At the cost of repetition, the so-called Merit list produced before this Court in four volumes are full of discrepancies and the Ld. Advocate General has also admitted that since the details were collected from various districts of the State; such typographical errors might have taken place which can be ignored. This Court cannot accept such flimsy plea/argument perticulary when the Petitioners are claiming violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 35. Advocate General has also admitted that since the details were collected from various districts of the State; such typographical errors might have taken place which can be ignored. This Court cannot accept such flimsy plea/argument perticulary when the Petitioners are claiming violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 35. At this stage, it is also pertinent to refer to the Resolution dated 23.02.2024; wherein the respondents have themselves declared that out of 17784 notified posts, 500 recommendation was made for 9916 posts and appointments on the advertised posts till the date of the said Resolution had been to the tune of 8171 only. Thus, as per the resolution, 9613 vacancies were remaining unfilled. The supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent nos. 2 and 4 dated 30.07.2025 mentions the total appointments up to 18.09.2019 as 8214 and further 614 persons are said to be appointed in between 19.09.2019 to 02.08.2022; thus, as per the said affidavit, total number of appointments already made up to 02.08.2022 comes to 8828. Accordingly, in view of the above resolution and supplementary counter affidavit; the respondents appear to be taking contradictory stand with respect to the appointments already made which has been protected by the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Ld. Advocate General has though argued that the State’s resolution is on different subject and the figures mentioned in the supplementary counter affidavit can only be relied upon but after having perused the contents of the resolution; this court finds difficulty in accepting such arguments of the Ld. Advocate General. 36. This court finds force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Petitioners that the entire list running in 4 volumes is full of errors and cannot be treated to be the “Revised State-Wise Merit List” or such merit list of ‘already appointees’ or even the ‘original petitioners’ as indicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that the lists running in 4 volumes contains names of 13961 candidates but in relation to a large number of candidates which includes all persons such as “Already Appointees” as protected by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the “Original Writ Petitioners” and even the ‘APPOINTEES’ who are being claimed to be appointed after the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court; several vital details including their marks and date of appointment and joining are missing. As stated hereinabove, in the said lists of 13961 candidates, it does appear that large number of such names are included (as claimed to be 1915 by the petitioners) who are shown to be absent or not joined in 2019 itself; thus, effectively result of only 12046 candidates has been given. Further, no cogent explanation has been advanced from the side of the Respondents that even if 3704 vacancies are claimed to have been surrendered why rest of the vacancies to the tune of more than 2000 have not been offered to the petitioners as per their merit in spite of specific directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 37. In view of the aforesaid, the following issues are to be addressed and enquired: (i) If as per the State Resolution dated 23.02.2024, total 9613 vacancies were existing to be filled up, how those vacancies have been filled up and when ? (ii) Whether the appointees who have lesser marks than the respective petitioners are actually appointees of anterior dates than the Apex court Judgement and are correctly protected ? (iii) Whether the original Petitioners which are again large in numbers in the lists produced by the respondents and less meritorious than the petitioners have been correctly categorised as ‘original petitioners’ ? (iv) Whether the vacancy positions being shown to be occupied by the absentees or non-joined candidates which is again large in numbers have been actually occupied by less meritorious persons and if so, why those vacancies be not offered to the petitioners on the basis of merit ? (v) Whether if as against the total advertised vacancies of 17784, effectively the result of only 12046 candidates has been given and the respondents are claiming to have surrendered 3704; then why the petitioners cannot be accommodated as per their merit against the said 2034 remaining vacancies in view of specific directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court ? 38. Thus, these are the moot questions but only due to the reasons that the Respondents have failed to present before this Court the “revised merit list” and “other merit list” as was directed to be prepared by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the ‘Merit list’ as submitted before this Court in four volumes contains numerous discrepancies raising serious doubts; this court is compelled to take a harsh view. Needless to say, the writ petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 582 of 2023 vide their supplementary affidavit filed on 23.09.2024 in paragraph no.21 mentioned such glaring examples which goes to the root of the matter. The said paragraph no. 21 mentions specific names of such candidates:- i. who were declared rejected but still appointed by the respondents, ii. who have been called for counselling in the year 2023 in spite of having lesser marks than the respective petitioner, iii. who have been appointed in breach of hierarchy as prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 15.12.2022. In said paragraph of the supplementary affidavit, by citing examples of individual names of the petitioners and the candidates who have been appointed, it has been demonstrated as to how injustice has been done to the petitioners while offering appointments to the less meritorious candidates or even rejected candidates. The JSSC has submitted a reply dated 12.11.2024 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 22.10.2024 wherein they have taken the following stand:- Para 13 - “That it is stated that before passing the interim order dated 18.09.2019 by this Hon'ble court in W.P. (C) No. 1387 of 2017, JSSC has already recommended 9590 candidates for appointment in respective Districts for respective posts against the Direct recruitment quota and 324 candidates were recommended for appointment against the vacancies of the Primary Trained Teacher i.e. altogether 9914 candidates were recommended for appointment. Para 22 - “That it is not out of place to mention here that 9590 candidates against the vacancies of the direct recruitment and 324 candidates against the vacancies of the Primary Trained Teacher i.e. altogether 9914 candidates were already recommended by the JSSC on the basis of District wise Merit list prior to passing the Final order dated 21.09.2020 by the Hon'ble full Bench in W.P. (C) No. 1387/2017 (Soni Kumari Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.) and analogous cases out of which recommendation in respect of 289 candidates were returned back by the Department after passing the aforesaid orders dated 02.08.2022, 02.12.2022 and 15.12.2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.” Para 23 - “That it is stated that Department has returned back the recommendation in respect of 289 candidates which were also included in the vacancies while preparing subject wise State merit list.” Para 24 - “That it is stated that recommendation for appointment made in the Scheduled Districts have been protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the same manner the candidates who were recommended in the Non- Scheduled District was also not interfered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.” Para 25 - “That, it is also relevant to mention here that out of 9914 candidates who were recommended for appointment on the basis of District wise merit list, recommendation in respect of 289 candidates were returned back by the State Government and as such 9626 recommended candidates were working and JSSC has not to take any decision about the aforesaid candidates and they have to be reshuffled and adjusted by the State Government.” 39. In the supplementary affidavit filed on 12.12.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 582 of 2023 in paragraph no.23 similarly large number of examples have been given of such candidates who belong to reserved category and got lesser marks but have been appointed in un-reserved category for which cut-off marks was much higher. Other names of such candidates have also been given in the said paragraph with details of the date of recommendation in the year 2023 and letter of appointment/joining of the same year to point out that such candidates of BC-I or other reserved category have been selected and appointed in un-reserved category in spite of having lesser marks than the so- called State-wise cut-off marks as claimed to be prescribed by the respondents. The details so given in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is specific with dates and all other details and reads as below for example:- “Para-23(E) - A candidates whose name is Shashi Suman has secured 178 marks in Commerce and he belongs to EBC-I category and he is selected in un-reserved category but the last selected candidate or cut-off marks declared by JSSC in district wise cut-off marks for un-reserved category is 152. It is submitted again that she is recommended vide letter no. 353 dated 17.03.2023 and appointed vide letter no. 408 and joined dated 20.05.2023 and the reference has been made Sl. no. 7615 (Pg.651). It is submitted again that this candidate has been appointed by the said state merit list for un-reserved category is 218…………..” Para-23(J) - A candidates whose name is Ajit Kumar has secured 127 marks in History and Civics and he belongs to BC-II category and he is selected in BC-II category but the last selected candidate or cut-off marks declared by JSSC in district wise cut-off marks for BC-II category is 190. It is submitted again that he is recommended vide letter no. 7117 dated 19.12.2018 and joined dated 09.01.2019 and the reference has been made Sl. no. 1671 (Pg.156). It is submitted again that this candidate has been appointed in district of Deoghar by district-wise merit list but the petitioners are painfully informing this Hon’ble Court that there were 150 questions in the examination, each question have weightage of 2 marks. It is submitted again that it is very much impossible to get 127 marks in this examination……..” Para-23(K) - A candidates whose name is Upendra Paswan has secured 182 marks in History and Civics and he belongs to SC category and he is selected in SC category but the last selected candidate or cut-off marks declared by JSSC in district wise cut-off marks for SC category is 172. It is submitted again that he is recommended vide letter no. 2950 dated 28.12.2023 and appointed vide letter no. 976 and joined dated 23.07.2024 and the reference has been made Sl. no. 4560 (Pg.396). It is submitted again that he is recommended vide letter no. 2950 dated 28.12.2023 and appointed vide letter no. 976 and joined dated 23.07.2024 and the reference has been made Sl. no. 4560 (Pg.396). It is submitted again that this candidate has been appointed by the said state merit list and the minimum cut-off of the said state merit list for the SC category is 220……..” On being confronted with the aforesaid specific averments about the irregularities evident from the lists produced by the respondents, no proper explanation has been given from the side of the respondents and in relation to the examples given, it has been simply submitted that the same may be mistakes or typographical mistakes because the records and data had to be compiled after getting the same from the various districts. 40. Thus, the fact still remains that why the revised merit list and other merit list as was directed to be prepared by the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, has not been prepared and if prepared, why the same has not been presented before this Court in spite of repeated orders in true perspective. As stated hereinabove, this Court does finds that the aforesaid figures given in the Supplementary Counter- affidavit stands contradictory to the State Government’s own resolution dated 23.02.2024. Further, the stand taken by the Respondent JSSC in para 24 is contrary to what has been held by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 02.08.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4038/2022 which in paragraph 28 of reads as under:- “It is now directed that instead of fresh/de novo recruitment process by setting aside the appointments already made in the Scheduled Districts/Areas, the State shall revise the merit list based on the already published cut off obtained by the last selected candidates in each TGT subject against the respective categories with respect to entire State and respective candidates belonging to the non- Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Areas (Districts) shall be adjusted accordingly on the basis of individual merit of the candidates. The present directions are issued considering the facts peculiar and circumstances of the case and more particularly considering the fact that there are already vacant posts of teachers in the State (in both Scheduled and non-Scheduled Area). The present directions are issued considering the facts peculiar and circumstances of the case and more particularly considering the fact that there are already vacant posts of teachers in the State (in both Scheduled and non-Scheduled Area). We are of the view that if the appointments already made are set aside and fresh de novo recruitment process for such posts is initiated, a number of schools in the Scheduled Areas shall be without any teacher which may ultimately affect larger public interest and education of concerned children in the Scheduled Areas. Present direction is issued in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the larger public interest of Scheduled Areas/Districts…………………” [Emphasis Supplied] 41. By going through the Apex Court’s direction, it is unequivocally clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court has only protected the appointments already made in Scheduled districts and nowhere the recommendations made for appointment in Scheduled and non-Scheduled districts have been protected by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 42. This Court has considered the replies submitted and arguments advanced on behalf of the Respondents and is constrained to hold that the list of 13961 candidates running in 4 volumes which has been presented by the Respondent-JSSC after various and repeated orders passed by this Court and is being claimed to be the ‘revised State- wise merit list’ cannot be accepted to be the “revised State- wise merit list” as was directed to be prepared by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgement dated 02.08.2022. As per the said judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, read with subsequent orders dated 02.12.2022 and 15.12.2022, the Respondents were directed to prepare revised merit list of the candidates based on minimum marks obtained by the last selected candidate in each subject in any of the districts for the purpose of filing up of the then available vacancies which has apparently not being done and instead of compying with the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Respondents are giving one or the other excuses, lists or data to anyhow justify their actions. The affidavits filed by the Respondents even claims as if all the recommendations made by JSSC in the year 2019 and prior to 18.09.2019, the date on which stay was granted by this Court in Soni Kumari case has been protected by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is not the case. 43. The affidavits filed by the Respondents even claims as if all the recommendations made by JSSC in the year 2019 and prior to 18.09.2019, the date on which stay was granted by this Court in Soni Kumari case has been protected by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is not the case. 43. It appears that the Respondents have further failed to prepare the separate merit list of the ‘already appointed candidates’ as well as the merit list of the ‘original writ petitioners’ although there was a specific order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 02.12.2022 in Contempt Case (Cvl.) no. 612/2022 in C.A no. 4044/2022. To anyhow reconcile the issues which are involved in the present batch of cases involving several writ petitioners who are claiming to have obtained higher marks than the cut-off marks as prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and better marks than the candidates to whom the Respondents has appointed after the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court; this Court has precisely examined the bulky list of 13961 candidates which has been produced by the Respondents and this Court does find that: A. Several names of such candidates have been included who are shown to be absent or not joined as against the original district-wise recommendations of 2019. B. There are many names of such candidates included in the list which are shown to be original petitioners although as per the own claim of the respondents, number of such original writ petitioners is only about 370. C. There are large number of such names included in the list against whom the basic details such as dates of their appointment, date of joining, roll nos. and most importantly marks obtained by them; is completely blank or missing. 44. The aforesaid mistakes and discrepancies appear to be grave and serious when the figures mentioned in the State’s own resolution dated 23.02.2024 is compared with the latest affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents no. and most importantly marks obtained by them; is completely blank or missing. 44. The aforesaid mistakes and discrepancies appear to be grave and serious when the figures mentioned in the State’s own resolution dated 23.02.2024 is compared with the latest affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents no. 2 and 4 dated 30.07.2025, because as per the State’s resolutions the number of recommendations as against the Advertisement number 21/2016 are claimed to be 9916 and all appointments until the date of Resolution of February 2024 has been disclosed as 8171 only; whereas, the above affidavit of the Respondents is claiming 8214 appointments till 18.09.2019 and further 614 appointments up to 02.08.2022; thereby total 8828 appointments till 02.08.2022 which appears contrary to the claims made in the State’s resolution dated 23.02.2024. Apart from the above, the names of absentees or not joined candidates which runs in large numbers have also been included in the lists produced by the Respondents. Thus, prima-facie it is apparent and evident that those vacancies remained unfilled to a serious detriment to the Petitioners and in gross breach of the directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Respondents are claiming to have surrendered 3704 vacancies only of “Reserved Candidates” thus, the vacancies being shown as occupied by the “absentees” and “not joined candidates” are not being claimed to have been surrendered; thus, the question arises as to why those vacancies of absentees and not joined candidates have neither been offered to the eligible candidates nor surrendered by the Respondents. 45. Further, as stated hereinabove, large number of discrepancies as contained in the list running in 4 volumes and repeated non-compliance of the orders passed by this Court by the Respondents and non-production of the ‘revised State-wise merit lists’ as was directed to be prepared by the Hon’ble Apex Court leads this Court to conclude that the Respondents have been thoroughly non-cooperative and these writ petitions cannot be decided casually in the manner in which the Respondents wanted this Court to dispose of the Writ petitions. In all these cases the Petitioners are claiming breach of their rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and their specific stand is that they have obtained higher marks than those candidates who have been offered appointments; thus, pertinent would be to ascertain who are the candidates who got appointed. In all these cases the Petitioners are claiming breach of their rights as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and their specific stand is that they have obtained higher marks than those candidates who have been offered appointments; thus, pertinent would be to ascertain who are the candidates who got appointed. From the list supplied in four volumes, it appears that the necessary information and data particularly with respect to the candidates who have been protected as ‘already appointees’ or as the ‘original writ petitioners’ is being deliberately not disclosed by not giving the correct picture of actual date of appointment and marks of the candidates who have been protected or appointed after the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 46. This Court cannot be a silent spectator when the matter raised herein are so grave and the question is of strict compliance of the judgment and orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. This Court cannot go on passing orders after orders particularly when the Respondents are either not complying to the directions or are trying to present such information and documents which amounts to clear attempt to mislead the Court. It is the extreme case where the Respondents have failed to present before this Court the very ‘revised merit list’ and other merit lists as was directed to be prepared by the Hon’ble Apex Court so as to satisfy this Court that no unlawful appointments have been made and that the orders and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been implemented in its true letters and spirit. 47. At the cost of repetition, this Court is also shocked and surprised as to how the Respondents can include the names of even absent/not joined candidates of the year 2019 and yet treat those vacancies to be filled up or occupied. As stated hereinabove, large number of names of candidates who are being shown as ‘original writ petitioners’ and the absence of basic details such as marks, dates of appointment and date of joining etc. As stated hereinabove, large number of names of candidates who are being shown as ‘original writ petitioners’ and the absence of basic details such as marks, dates of appointment and date of joining etc. in relation to large number of candidates leads this Court to form a prima facie opinion that the Respondents have committed serious breaches in preparing the “Revised Merit List” which may also involve acts or omissions amounting to a penal offence as also in the matter of sending incorrect recommendations, without preparing the ‘Merit Lists’ as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also in making appointments of candidates having lesser merits. 48. No doubt, even while hearing a matter under Article 226 this Court may in exceptional cases call for the witnesses and take oral depositions but such mechanism may be quite cumbersome and lengthy in its process looking at the number of the writ petitioners and a variety of claims of the petitioners; thus, in view of the above and particularly because the entire actions of the respondents appear to be in breach of the laws and prescribed procedures, this Court is constrained to take a serious view so that only the deserving and eligible candidates may be saved and the non-deserving and non-eligible candidates may be screened out to pave the way for the appointment of the petitioners if they are otherwise eligible and have obtained more marks than the cut-off marks in their respective subjects as prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The present matter reveals serious and systemic irregularities in the recruitment process conducted under the aegis of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC). Such irregularities not only undermine the fairness and transparency of the selection process but also adversely impact the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 49. The facts of the present case prima facie disclose a situation wherein the recruitment process has been tainted with gross illegalities, arbitrariness, and procedural improprieties, warranting an independent probe because an enquiry/investigation by any State agency would neither inspire public confidence nor serve the ends of justice, particularly when the alleged irregularities pertain to a statutory body of the State Government itself. 50. The allegations and/or the contention raised by the candidates really appears to be very grave in nature. 50. The allegations and/or the contention raised by the candidates really appears to be very grave in nature. Furthermore, as observed earlier, this Court is prima-facie satisfied about the descripencies in the procedure of appointment on the basis of the contradictions and suppressions of material facts involved in these batch of writ petitions. However, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it would be appropriate at this stage to constitute a fact-finding commission to enquire into the illegalities and irregularities committed by the JSSC and the State Government and their officials in the matter of publication of the revised merit list pursuant to the judgement and orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 51. Accordingly, to maintain institutional integrity and ensure an impartial enquiry a one-man commission headed by a former judge of this Court is being constituted. Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak (Retd.) is appointed as a One- Man Fact-Finding Commission to look into the matter of irregularities and illegalities, if any, committed in the matter of preparation and publication of the revised merit list pursuant to the judgment and orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matters referred to above. The One-Man Fact-Finding Commission is requested to make an enquiry and report, inter alia, on the following issues: I. Whether the respondent JSSC has at all prepared the revised merit list and other merit lists as per the judgment and orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court before making appointments after the judgment dated 02.08.2022 ? II. Who are and how many numbers of ‘already appointed and protected candidates’ having lesser marks than the marks obtained by the petitioners have been accommodated and whether their actual dates of appointment and joining is prior to and as per the judgment dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court or not ? III. Who are and how many numbers of ‘original writ petitioners’ as indicated in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court having lesser marks than the petitioners in their respective subjects have been appointed by the respondents and whether they deserve to be included in the said category ? IV. Whether the vacancies indicated to be occupied by the absentees or non-joining candidates in the year 2019 which is large in number and not surrendered have been actually filled up by the respondents by less meritorious candidates? IV. Whether the vacancies indicated to be occupied by the absentees or non-joining candidates in the year 2019 which is large in number and not surrendered have been actually filled up by the respondents by less meritorious candidates? V. Further it shall also be required to be verified as to, whether the candidates whose candidature was rejected on valid reasons have been later on favoured with appointments and the candidates who have lesser marks than the petitioners have actually been appointed prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court or after 02.08.2022 ? VI. Any other aspect/issue which the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission may think fit and proper. 52. In view of the above, the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission is requested to make an enquiry into the aspects refered to in Paragraph No.50 of this Judgment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this Judgment and submit its report to the State Government, which may be placed before the Hon’ble Council of Ministers for taking an informed decision on the report and recommendations of the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission. The Final decision of the State Government must be taken within 6 weeks from the date of submission of the report by the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission. 53. This Court further directs that the State Government shall take final decision on the above referred report and the issue involved as indicated herein below: (i) How to appoint/adjust the genuine candidates? (ii) To take appropriate actions to remove the non-eligible candidates; (iii) To take action against erring officials/staffs of the concerned Department/JSSC; both departmentally and/or criminally. 54. The One-Man Fact-Finding Commission is free to devise the mechanism and procedure for making the enquiry as directed by this Court and it shall be free to consider issuing a general notice inviting objections/representations from the writ petitioners only and after hearing all the concerned may prepare the report so that the orders passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court are complied with in its letters and spirit. It is further clarified that the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission would be empowered to summon any person/(s) /Official/(s) of the Respondents and/or call for any documents in original from them for proper enquiry as aforesaid. 55. It is further clarified that the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission would be empowered to summon any person/(s) /Official/(s) of the Respondents and/or call for any documents in original from them for proper enquiry as aforesaid. 55. It is woth mentioning here that the Learned Advocate General has, during course of his arguments, made a proposal that the Petitioners may approach the Secretary of the JSSC raising their individual claims and their grievances can be redressed at that level subject to the available vacancies. Though this Court appreciates the proposal made by Ld. A.G.; however, in the attending facts and circumstances, this Court is declining to accept such proposal of sending the Petitioners to JSSC itself for the purpose of enquiry into the issues mentioned in Paragraph-50 of this Judgment, for which purpose a One-Man Fact- Finding Commission is being appointed and the Petitioners would be at liberty to place their claims in the form of Representations and supporting documents before the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission, as already observed earlier. 56. This Court also directs that the already appointed candidates shall not be disturbed until final outcome of the enquiry and if any appointment or appointments are found to be wrongful or in breach of the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court; the concerned candidate will be afforded due opportunity before any final action is taken with respect to their services. 57. The State Government is directed to make all necessary arrangements to effective functioning of the One- Man Fact-Finding Commission including providing of Secretarial Staff and other support staff. The State Government must ensure that the sittings of the Commission are held at a venue that the One-Man Commission may decide. The One-Man Fact-Finding Commission must be paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Only) as renumeration. The same must be paid within three equated monthly instalments. 58. Inspite of the above controvercies and issues which may be enquired into by the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission; yet another important aspect which requires consideration/determination, inasmuch as, if as against the total advertised vacancies i.e. 17784; the Respondents have appointed only 12046 candidates and 3704 vacancies are claimed to have been surrendered on account of non- availibility of S.C. & S.T. candidates; then the remaining 2034 vacancies needs to be offered to the eligible Petitioners strictly on the baisis of their respective merits. In other words, there are good number of vacancies which have not being filled up at all. Thus, the Respondents are also directed to fill-up the remaining 2034 vacancies within a period of six months and the Petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Respondent- JSSC/Secretary by way of filing their detailed representation within a period eight weeks from the date of this Judgment and upon receipt of such representation/(s); the JSSC shall make due recommendation to the concerned department for the needful after thorough verification. It is made clear that the aforesaid direction shall only be applicable w.r.t. the remaining vacancies i.e. 2034. 59. Further, the vacancies which may be carved out on the basis of the One-Man Fact-Finding Commission Report and the informed decision of the State Government, shall be offered to the other deserving candidates in due course. 60. Registry is directed to send the copy this order to the Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Pathak (Retd.). Copy of this order shall also be handed over to the Ld. Advocate General & Mr. Sanjoy Piprewal for onward transmission to all the concerned authorities. 61. Before parting, it is pertinent to observe that after every examination for selection by JSSC or JPSC, this Court is flooded with the writ petitions complaining about non-consideration or rejection or non-discloser of marks of selected or non-selected candidates and thereby violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Often this Court has to call for original records to verify the facts and claims of the candidates, which becomes clumsy and time taking; thus, this Court proposes the State Government to constitute an authority within JPSC/JSSC as a “Fact-Finding Body” to receive the grievances of the candidates and pass reasoned and speaking orders based on the verification of the original records which are maintained by these organisations. This authority, if constituted, shall act as a primary fact-finding authority to give its view only on the factual claims of the candidates; which will naturally filter out the genuine claims and it would also lessen the burden of this Court. 62. As a result, all these writ petitions stand disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.