A Single Judge Bench of Justice Deepak Roshan directed that the petitioners be deemed to have continued in service without any break and that they should not be denied monetary or other service benefits on account of the cancellation notification.

The dispute concerned the Jharkhand General Graduate Level Combined Competitive Examination (JGGLCCE)-2023, conducted for recruitment to posts including Assistant Section Officer, Junior Secretariat Assistant, Labour Enforcement Officer, Planning Assistant, Block Welfare Officer, Block Supply Officer and Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoongo.

The examination, initially scheduled for January 28 and February 4, 2024, was cancelled following reports of a paper leak. It was subsequently conducted on September 21 and 22, 2024. Allegations of malpractices led to the filing of two writ petitions, including a PIL and another petition instituted by 1,011 unsuccessful candidates. On December 17, 2024, a Division Bench directed registration of an FIR, following which two cases were registered by CID, Ranchi, in January 2025.

By its judgment dated December 3, 2025, a Division Bench declined to cancel the examination and directed an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) within six months. The JSSC published the final results on December 8, 2025. Subsequently, on January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Division Bench judgment, while expressly directing that appointment letters already issued or to be issued would remain subject to the final outcome of all criminal prosecutions. The petitioners received appointment letters between December 2025 and January 2026 and joined their respective posts.

However, following protests in Ranchi in July 2026, the State Government issued the notification dated August 18, 2026, cancelling 22 examinations, including the recruitment under Advertisement No. 10 of 2023. The materials also referred to a separate FIR concerning alleged irregularities in the 14th Civil Services Examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC).

Challenging the notification, the petitioners submitted that the issue of cancellation had already been considered by the High Court and Supreme Court. They argued that the State could not reopen the same controversy through executive action while the investigation remained pending. The petitioners further contended that they were already appointed public servants and that cancellation of the recruitment effectively terminated their services without compliance with applicable service rules and constitutional protections.

The State defended the cancellation, alleging systemic fraud involving manipulation of examination records, tampering with OMR sheets, digital irregularities and destruction of evidence. It argued that separating genuine candidates from beneficiaries of the alleged malpractice was not reliably possible and that wholesale cancellation did not require proof beyond reasonable doubt or individual hearings.

Examining the matter, the High Court noted that the earlier Division Bench had already declined to cancel the examination on allegations substantially similar to those relied upon by the State. The Supreme Court had also permitted the appointments to remain subject to the outcome of criminal proceedings.

The Court held that the State could not undo the decisions of constitutional courts merely by claiming that further material had been collected or additional arrests had been made. It observed:

“An act of the executive cannot be contrary to a judicial order. Likewise, judicial decisions, inter alia, are aimed to give quietus to a dispute and bring about certainty. Legal certainty is a Rule of Law. Post final determination of the issues by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, it is not permissible for the State Government to reopen the same issue that too in a manner in which it has been done by the impugned notification.”

The Bench further held that the State had breached the earlier orders of the High Court and Supreme Court and that the cancellation notification sought to overreach those decisions. Significantly, the Court noted that the Cabinet had taken the cancellation decision partly because of the protests. However, the Cabinet note did not disclose the exact materials considered while deciding to cancel the present examination along with 21 others.

The Court observed that although a writ court was not required to examine the sufficiency of materials underlying an administrative decision, reasonable materials must exist and be considered before arriving at such a decision. It further held that whether tainted and untainted candidates could be segregated, or whether beneficiaries of malpractice could be identified, could be determined only after completion of the investigation.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the notification dated August 18, 2026, insofar as it cancelled recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 2023, and directed continuity of service with all consequential monetary and other service benefits. However, the Bench expressly clarified that the earlier High Court judgment dated December 3, 2025, and Supreme Court order dated January 5, 2026, would continue to bind all concerned, and the petitioners' appointments would remain subject to the final outcome of the criminal prosecutions.

The Court also directed that the investigation be carried to its logical conclusion in a fair and free manner, expressed hope that it would be expedited and required the petitioners to cooperate. It clarified that its observations would not prejudice the ongoing investigation.

Appearance:

For the Petitioners: Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate; Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Senior Advocate; Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate; Mr. Saurav Shekhar, Advocate; Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Advocate; Mr. Arpan M. Ekka, Advocate; Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate; Mr. Shray Mishra; Mr. Deepankar; Mr. Sonal Tiwary; Mr. Ritesh Ranjan; Mr. Kumar Chayan; Mr. Nikhil Anand.

For the Respondents: Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate (through VC); Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate General; Mr. Achyut Keshav, Senior AAG; Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate; Mr. Vibhour Mayank, AC to AG; Ms. Ruchi Mukti, AC to AAG.

For the Proposed Intervenor: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Samvesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate.