Jharkhand High Court quashes cancellation of JSSC graduate-level recruitment, protects appointees’ service
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAA RANCHI. November 6: In a significant ruling concerning the Jharkhand General Graduate Level Combined Competitive Examination (JGGLCCE)-2023, the Jharkhand…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAA
RANCHI. November 6: In a significant ruling concerning the Jharkhand General Graduate Level Combined Competitive Examination (JGGLCCE)-2023, the Jharkhand High Court on Friday quashed the State government’s decision to cancel the recruitment process initiated under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023, holding that the cancellation was based on an incomplete investigation and lacked an adequate factual foundation.
Justice Deepak Roshan, in a 175-page judgment pronounced on November 6, set aside the State government’s notification dated August 18, 2026, which had cancelled the recruitment. The court directed that the petitioners be deemed to continue in service without any break and that they should not be denied monetary or other service benefits on account of the cancellation order.
The relief, however, is confined to the petitioners in the writ proceedings. Their appointments will remain subject to the final outcome of all criminal prosecutions connected with the examination. The court also directed that the investigation should continue fairly and reach its logical conclusion.
Court finds no conclusive evidence of systemic manipulation
The court held that the State government had failed to place before it the findings of a concluded, in-depth investigation establishing systematic irregularities that compromised the integrity of the entire selection process.
It observed that the investigation into alleged malpractices was still underway and that the material collected so far did not establish, with reasonable certainty, that the entire examination had been vitiated by widespread fraud.
The court also found that the State had not provided cogent material to support its contention that tainted and untainted candidates could not be identified separately. It said the question of segregation could be considered after the investigation was completed.
In the absence of such an assessment, the decision to cancel the examination along with 21 other examinations could not be sustained, the court held.
Earlier High Court and Supreme Court orders were binding
A major consideration in the judgment was the earlier ruling of a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Prakash Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, delivered on December 3, 2025.
The Division Bench had declined to cancel the JGGLCCE-2023 examination and directed the JSSC to publish the final results and the State government to appoint successful candidates. It had also directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to complete its investigation within six months.
The Division Bench had specifically directed that the results of 10 candidates, out of 28 allegedly taken to Nepal to memorise questions and answers, be kept in abeyance until the investigation was completed. It had further permitted the State to take appropriate action if additional successful candidates were found involved in malpractice.
The JSSC subsequently published the final result on December 8, 2025.
The State government challenged the Division Bench judgment before the Supreme Court. However, on January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to interfere and directed that all appointment letters issued or to be issued would remain subject to the final outcome of the criminal prosecutions.
The petitioners received their appointment letters between December 2025 and January 2026 and had joined their respective posts.
Justice Roshan held that the State government could not reopen an issue that had already been considered by the High Court and the Supreme Court by citing further material and arrests during the ongoing investigation. The court observed that the earlier judicial directions had permitted the investigation to continue and had already made the appointments subject to its final outcome.
It held that the State’s August 18 notification ran contrary to the binding judicial orders and amounted to an attempt to overreach them.
State cited CID investigation, OMR tampering and digital manipulation
The State government defended its decision by arguing that systemic fraud had compromised the recruitment process. It relied on CID enquiries, FIRs, arrests of Commission officials and agency directors, alleged manipulation of OMR sheets, digital interference and destruction of evidence.
The State contended that the original records and digital audit trails had been compromised, making it difficult to distinguish honest candidates from those who had benefited from malpractice.
It further argued that the government did not have to wait for criminal convictions before taking administrative action and that mass cancellation could be ordered on the basis of sufficient material indicating systemic irregularities.
The State also maintained that the cancellation was an annulment of a defective selection process rather than punitive action against individual employees, and therefore individual hearings were not necessary.
The petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the State had not disclosed examination-specific evidence establishing widespread manipulation. They contended that the allegations and investigation were already under consideration in the earlier proceedings and that the government could not cancel a completed recruitment process while the investigation remained pending.
Natural justice cannot be bypassed without adequate grounds
The High Court also examined whether the State could cancel the recruitment and effectively discontinue the services of appointed candidates without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
It observed that the petitioners were no longer merely candidates awaiting appointment but had already joined government service. Their appointments and service could not be taken away without following due process.
The court held that the principles of natural justice could be dispensed with only in exceptional circumstances supported by facts on record. The State had failed to establish such circumstances in the present case.
It further observed that material collected during an incomplete investigation could not, by itself, be used to bypass the requirement of natural justice.
Referring to several Supreme Court judgments cited by the parties, the court distinguished cases in which mass cancellation had been upheld after a detailed investigation established widespread malpractice. It noted that those decisions were based on concrete evidence, including completed inquiries and identified instances of manipulation.
In the present case, the investigation had not reached that stage. The State had made a broad assertion that segregation was not possible but had failed to provide sufficient reasons or supporting material for that position.
Cabinet decision lacked an adequate factual foundation
The judgment also questioned the material placed before the State Cabinet when it decided to cancel 22 examinations.
The court noted that the Cabinet decision referred to public protests and the ongoing investigation but did not disclose the precise materials considered for cancelling the JGGLCCE-2023 recruitment and the other examinations.
While observing that a writ court is not expected to examine the sufficiency of every piece of material behind an administrative decision, Justice Roshan said reasonable material must nevertheless exist and be considered before such a decision is taken.
In the absence of an adequate factual basis, an administrative decision could be held perverse, the court observed.
Investigation to continue; appointments remain subject to prosecution
Setting aside the August 18, 2026 notification insofar as it cancelled the recruitment under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023, the court ordered that the petitioners would be deemed to be in service with continuity and without any break. They would also not be denied monetary or other service benefits on account of the impugned notification.
However, the court made it clear that the earlier Division Bench judgment dated December 3, 2025, and the Supreme Court’s order dated January 5, 2026, would continue to bind all concerned.
Consequently, the petitioners’ appointments will remain subject to the final outcome of all criminal prosecutions relating to the examination.
The court directed that the investigation be carried out freely and fairly to its logical conclusion and expressed the hope that it would be expedited. It also directed the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation.
Clarifying the scope of its observations, the court said its findings were limited to the present proceedings and would not prejudice the ongoing investigation.
The writ petitions were accordingly allowed, with pending interlocutory applications also disposed of.
