JSSC-CGL cancellation row: Jharkhand govt defends scrapping exam, HC keeps interim order
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, September 18: The Jharkhand High Court on Friday heard a batch of petitions challenging the cancellation of the…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, September 18: The Jharkhand High Court on Friday heard a batch of petitions challenging the cancellation of the JSSC-CGL examination and the consequent termination of candidates appointed through the recruitment process, with the State government defending its decision on the ground that the entire examination process had been compromised.
Justice Deepak Roshan, hearing the connected writ petitions, permitted the petitioners to file rejoinders to the State’s counter-affidavits within 10 days and continued the interim order granted earlier.
The court also appointed former High Court judge Justice Gautam Kumar Chaudhary (Retd.) as Monitor/Observer to examine complaints of harassment allegedly arising during the ongoing SIT investigation. The court, however, made it clear that the arrangement would not interfere with the investigation, which the SIT was free to conduct in accordance with law.
The proceedings saw arguments on both the legality of the State’s decision to cancel the recruitment process and concerns raised on behalf of candidates who have been affected by the cancellation.
State says entire examination process was compromised
In its counter-affidavit, the State government has defended the cancellation of the JSSC-CGL examination, stating that the decision was in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines.
According to the government’s reply, the entire examination process had been compromised and it had become extremely difficult to distinguish candidates who had qualified fairly from those who may have benefited from unfair means.
The State referred to the Supreme Court guidelines cited in the Vanshikha vs. Central Government case, contending that when an examination is so thoroughly compromised that legitimate and illegitimate candidates cannot be separated, cancellation of the entire examination is justified.
The government also cited examples of examinations cancelled by different governments to support its decision.
The affidavit was filed by Amar Kumar, Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, in response to petitions challenging the cancellation.
28 arrested, 265 notices issued, says government
The State’s affidavit said confidential work relating to the CGL examination, including printing of question papers and their transportation to examination centres, had been entrusted to ICN Technology.
According to the government, 28 persons, including ICN Technology CEO Somansh Prakash, have been arrested in connection with alleged irregularities in the examination, while notices have been issued to 265 people.
The government further stated that the investigation had uncovered alleged instances of candidates being coached to memorise answers in exchange for money at various locations, including Nepal, Asansol, Kolkata, Bihar, Jharia and Bokaro.
The affidavit said evidence of financial transactions between the agency and beneficiary candidates had also emerged during the investigation.
It further stated that 28 candidates were taken to Nepal and that 10 of them subsequently cleared the CGL examination.
These are allegations and claims contained in the State’s affidavit; the investigation remains ongoing.
Petitioners seek focus on legality of cancellation
During Friday’s hearing, senior advocate Paramjit Singh Patwalia, appearing for one set of petitioners, argued that the central issue before the court was the legality of the notifications through which the entire advertisement and selection process had been cancelled.
He submitted that the cancellation had, in effect, automatically terminated all candidates who had already been appointed and sought a shorter date for filing a rejoinder to the State’s counter-affidavit.
Patwalia pointed out that the State’s counter-affidavit contained allegations against the petitioners and said they should be given an opportunity to rebut those averments.
Senior advocate Rajiv Ranjan also represented the petitioners in the connected matters.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for another set of petitioners, supported Patwalia’s submissions and urged the court not to lose sight of the principal issue—the legality of the State’s impugned notifications.
The court recorded the submission that the ultimate issue to be decided was the legality of the action taken by the State through the impugned notifications, by which the advertisement and selection process had been cancelled and the appointments made pursuant to it were affected.
Counsel raises concern over alleged harassment
Another significant moment in the hearing came when advocate Indrajit Sinha, appearing for another group of petitioners, raised concerns about the manner in which the ongoing SIT investigation was being conducted.
Sinha submitted that the SIT was “perhaps” noticing or summoning some innocent candidates and referred to instances of alleged harassment and undue pressure.
He made it clear that he was not seeking to comment on the investigation itself, but requested the court to put in place a mechanism to ensure that innocent candidates were not subjected to harassment.
The State, represented by Advocate General Rohitashya Roy and senior counsel Meenakshi Arora, responded that investigating officers could summon or issue notices to any person if they considered it necessary on the basis of material collected during the investigation.
At the same time, the State side submitted that if anyone had an apprehension of high-handedness, the issue could be monitored by an independent person such as a retired High Court judge.
Court appoints former judge to examine complaints
After considering the rival submissions, Justice Deepak Roshan said that summoning a person by itself could not be termed harassment. However, keeping in view the principles of fairness and the interest of justice, the court considered it appropriate to appoint Justice Gautam Kumar Chaudhary (Retd.) as Monitor/Observer.
The retired judge will look into complaints of harassment arising during the investigation.
The court clarified that the monitoring mechanism would remain completely independent of the writ proceedings and would not prevent the SIT from continuing its investigation.
The court also directed that if any appointed candidate receives a summons, the candidate must cooperate fully with the investigation. If the candidate has a complaint of harassment, the person may approach the appointed Monitor/Observer.
If such a complaint is found to be genuine, it will be conveyed to the head of the SIT, who will consider remedial measures and report back to the retired judge along with the progress of the investigation.
Court stresses probe must remain free and fair
The High Court made it clear that the appointment of the Monitor/Observer should not be interpreted as interference in the SIT investigation or as an adverse comment on the probe.
The court said the arrangement was intended to ensure a free and fair investigation, dispel apprehensions among candidates and provide a check and balance while allowing the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law.
The State will bear the logistics, office support and remuneration/honorarium of the retired judge.
Government cites investigation findings
In its affidavit, the government said the appointment letters issued to successful candidates had specifically made their appointments subject to the outcome of the CID investigation.
According to the State, findings of the investigation indicated that the examination process had been compromised to such an extent that it was not possible to reliably distinguish candidates who had qualified fairly from those who may have benefited from irregularities.
The matter was subsequently considered by the State Cabinet, which decided to cancel the examination. An order cancelling the examination was then issued.
The government’s position is that, given the alleged extent of the irregularities and the difficulty in separating genuine candidates from tainted selections, cancellation was the only legally sustainable course available to it.
Rejoinder within 10 days, next hearing on October 7
The High Court permitted the petitioners to file rejoinders to the State’s counter-affidavits, if they so desired, within 10 days after serving copies on the State.
The State had filed counter-affidavits in two of the connected matters on Friday and the Advocate General submitted that those affidavits would be treated as the State’s response to all the connected writ petitions.
The court accepted the affidavits on record.
The batch of petitions includes W.P.(S) No. 6512 of 2026, Subhash Murmu & Ors. versus State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and connected matters.
The court continued the interim order granted earlier and directed that the cases be listed for further hearing on October 7 at 11:30 am.
The litigation continues to centre on whether the State was legally justified in cancelling the entire recruitment process and thereby affecting candidates who had already been appointed, while the parallel SIT investigation examines allegations of irregularities in the examination.
