“If 40% Have Irregularities, Why Punish the 60%?” Jharkhand High Court Questions Government
Ranchi, August 20: The Jharkhand High Court has, for the time being, stayed the state government’s decision to cancel appointments made through the 11th to 13th JPSC Civil Services examinations and the Food Safety Officer examination. Hearing three separate petitions, Justice Deepak Roshan directed that the selected candidates be allowed to resume their duties. The court has sought responses from the state government and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC). The next hearing has been scheduled for September 15.
During the hearing, the state government informed the court that the CID investigation had so far revealed irregularities in around 40 percent of the cases and that the investigation was still underway. The government argued that the examinations and appointments should be cancelled on the basis of these findings.
The High Court, however, made a significant observation, stating, “If irregularities have been found in 40 percent, the remaining 60 percent selected candidates cannot be punished because of it.”
Court Questions Procedure Followed to Cancel Appointments
The petitioners argued that the selection process had been completed, appointment letters had been issued and the candidates had already joined their respective posts. However, the government issued a notification late on August 18 cancelling the appointments.
The court, prima facie, observed that employees who had already been appointed could not be removed without following due process and the principles of natural justice. The High Court therefore stayed the government’s cancellation order until further orders and directed that the selected candidates be taken back into service.
Action Against Those Found Guilty of Irregularities
During the hearing, the court indicated that action should be taken against candidates or other persons whose involvement in irregularities is established through the investigation. The court also suggested that cases involving proven irregularities should be taken up by fast-track courts.
The court’s observations made it clear that candidates found to be uninvolved in wrongdoing cannot automatically be held responsible for irregularities allegedly committed by others.
Sonam Kumari Says She Left Another Job to Join JPSC Post
In a petition related to the 11th to 13th JPSC Civil Services examination, petitioner Sonam Kumari told the court that she had left another job to join the post offered through the JPSC selection process. She received her appointment letter on November 24, 2025, and had also completed her training.
The government subsequently issued the August 18 notification cancelling her appointment. Sonam Kumari challenged the decision before the High Court. A separate petition has also been filed by Deepmala and others challenging the government’s decision to cancel appointments made under JPSC Civil Services Examination Advertisement No. 1/2024.
Food Safety Officer Appointments Also Challenged
The third petition was filed by Saurav Singh and others challenging the government’s decision to cancel appointments made on the basis of the JPSC Food Safety Officer examination conducted under Advertisement No. 18/2023.
Advocates Indrajit Sinha, Amritansh Vats, Prerna Jhunjhunwala and P.A.S. Pati appeared for the petitioners.
Government Had Issued Major Order on August 18
Based on the findings emerging from the CID investigation, the state government had announced action against several examinations and appointment processes late on August 18. The Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Official Language Department subsequently issued a notification.
According to the notification, 22 examinations were cancelled, the process of six examinations was stayed, and 17 examinations were placed under investigation.
The High Court’s interim order has provided major relief to candidates selected through the 11th to 13th JPSC Civil Services examination and the Food Safety Officer examination. The matter will come up for further hearing on September 15, when the court will consider the responses of the state government and JPSC.
