Ramesh Oraon & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since, common issues are involved in the writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions have prayed that the Notification dated 18.08.2026, bearing No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5408 of 2026, cancelling the recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 2023 be quashed.

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) issued Advertisement No. 10 of 2023 for JGGLCCE-2023 (Regular), covering the posts of Assistant Section Officer, Junior Secretariat Assistant, Labour Enforcement Officer, Planning Assistant, Block Welfare Officer, Block Supply Officer and Circle Inspector-cum-Kanoongo. The examination was initially scheduled for 28.01.2024 and 04.02.2024 was cancelled following reports of a paper leak. The rescheduled examination was conducted on 21.09.2024 and 22.09.2024.

Alleging malpractices in the conduct of the examination two writ petitions, one a public interest litigation, being W.P. (PIL) No. 5717 of 2024, Prakash Kumar & Ors., and another W.P. (S) No. 1476 of 2025; the latter instituted by 1011 number of unsuccessful candidates came to be filed.

W.P. (PIL) No. 5717 of 2024 was preferred for the following reliefs: -

W.P.(S) No. 1476 of 2025 was preferred for the following reliefs: -

The Division Bench vide an order dated 17.12.2024 directed registration of First Information Report and in compliance thereof, CID Ranchi PS Case No. 01 of 2025 dated 01.01.2025 and CID Ranchi PS Case No. 02 of 2025 dated 03.01.2025 were registered for investigating offences under sections 316(2)/ 318(2)/318(4)/61(2) of the BNS and sections 12(2) / 12(3) of the Jharkhand Competitive Examinations (Measures for Control and Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2023.

Both the writ petitions were heard together and decided by a common judgment and order dated 03.12.2025 by a Division Bench of this Court, whereby, inter alia, the following directions were issued: -

JSSC published the final result on 08.12.2025.

The above judgement dated 03.12.2025 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 38545–38546 of 2025 [Prakash Kumar Etc. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] and by order dated 05.01.2026, the Hon’ble Apex Court declined to interfere, while expressly directing that all appointment letters issued or to be issued remain subject to the final outcome of all criminal prosecutions.

The respective petitioners received appointment letters in December 2025-January 2026 and have since served on their respective posts.

The investigation concerning the present examination is still pending under F.I.R. No. 01 of 2025 and remains incomplete.

Following protests staged at the end of July 2026 in Ranchi, the State issued the impugned notification and cancelled the present recruitment along with other examinations. Basis such protest, another FIR being CID P.S. Case No. 16 of 2026, dated 22.07.2026, concerned alleged irregularities in the 14th Civil Services Examination conducted by JPSC was registered and following that the impugned decision to cancel altogether 22 examinations was taken vide the impugned Notification dated 18.08.2026, bearing No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5408 of 2026.

The Petitioners assailed the impugned Notification on following grounds:

The issue whether this examination should be cancelled or preserved, with action against unidentifiable tainted candidates, was directly considered in Prakash Kumar (Supra). The State, being a party to those proceedings, was bound to give effect to the directions for investigation and candidate-specific action. It could not reopen the adjudicated issue through executive action on substantially the same allegations, without identifying fresh material warranting a different course.

Reliance is placed on Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade, (1999) 5 SCC 590, paragraphs 26 and 31, concerning finality, res judicata and issue of estoppel, including their application to administrative proceedings. The petitioners submit that the impugned action undermines the binding framework of the earlier judgment and the subsequent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The condition making appointments subject to the final outcome of criminal prosecutions must be given effect according to its terms. The petitioners seek protection of their appointments pending that outcome and do not claim immunity from investigation or lawful action against persons found involved in malpractice. Reliance is also placed on Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia v. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu, (2021) 6 SCC 523, paragraphs 34–36, for the presumption of innocence and submit that allegations leading to investigation and / or submission of chargesheet ipso facto do not prove the culpability of the accused – candidate. Neither a FIR, nor a Chargesheet, can be considered as legal evidence and hence not material which can form the basis of such en masse cancellation.

The petitioners submit that allegations relating to a different Commission and examination cannot, without a demonstrated nexus, justify cancellation of this recruitment.

It has been submitted that the applicable test is whether the material establishes a systemic breach, whether that breach compromises the integrity of the entire examination, and whether tainted candidates can be segregated from untainted candidates. These considerations, discussed in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 743, paragraphs 67, 68, 86 and 87, require an examination of substantiated allegations and a proportionate response, rather than cancellation founded on suspicion.

The petitioners submit that neither the impugned notification, nor the counter affidavit discloses material concerning this examination sufficient to establish pervasive malpractice or the impossibility of segregation. No disclosed report recommends cancellation of the examination as a whole. The investigation remains pending; the six-month period stipulated by the Division Bench expired on 03.06.2026 without a final report.

The letter as contained in Memo No. 936 dated 17.08.2026, placed as Annexure R/1 to the rejoinder in W.P. (S) No. 6521 of 2026, is cited to demonstrate the inadequacy of the material accompanying the Cabinet note. The petitioners contend that public protests and allegations relating to other examinations supplied the occasion for the decision, but not an examination-specific evidentiary foundation for it.

The narrative concerning BINSYS, ICN, WEBEL, ITI and TDPL does not, according to the petitioners, identify their role in the examination held on 21–22.09.2024 or establish a connection with its question papers or results. Association between vendors or individuals cannot substitute for material connecting the alleged wrongdoing to Advertisement No. 10 of 2023. The petitioners further rely on the earlier DSP/SP affidavits and the Division Bench’s finding that no leak from an examination centre or during transit had been established.

The allegations regarding candidates being taken to Nepal as a part of the conspiracy and other allegations were already before the Division Bench and have been considered and acted upon. As recorded in the earlier judgment, the candidates were allegedly given 123 questions to memorize, of which 66 appeared, and only 10 of the 28 candidates were selected. Paragraph 137(xii) is relied upon concerning the absence of an unusual spike in the results of the centres complained of. General references to malpractice in Nepal, Bihar, West Bengal, Bokaro and Dhanbad do not, without further particulars, establish that the entire examination was compromised.

The State’s references to 265 candidates under notice, as against 2,231 called for document verification, and to arrests of selected candidates indicate that individual suspects are being identified. The petitioners contend that only three selected candidates had been arrested when the notification was issued, one in the JPSC-related matter, and that several arrests relied upon occurred thereafter. Subsequent developments do not, by themselves, establish that the requisite foundation existed on 18.08.2026. The State must explain, on relevant material, why segregation cannot be undertaken.

The petitioners are appointed public servants, not merely candidates awaiting selection. Cancellation of the recruitment has the substantive effect of terminating their services. The State cannot avoid the applicable service rules framed under Article 309, or the protection guaranteed by Article 311, merely by describing its action as cancellation of an examination. If the appointments are asserted to be void, the foundational facts establishing that the process was a nullity must first be demonstrated on relevant material.

The petitioners do not insist on separate hearings for every appointee irrespective of the circumstances. They submit, however, that the State was required to record its reasons, justify any dispensation with a hearing, and consider segregation. Reliance on a sealed-cover report does not answer the challenge to the absence of disclosed reasons and an adequate foundation for the impugned decision.

The petitioners also question the State’s authority to cancel the recruitment process conducted by JSSC after accepting its recommendations and issuing appointments. The submission concerning the respective functions of the State and the Commission under Articles 166 and 320, and the applicable service framework, is pressed as an independent objection to the competence and legality of the impugned action. It was contended that the decision to cancel the recruitment process pursuant to the Advertisement issued by JSSC could only have been taken by the JSSC and not the State Government.

The action is assailed as arbitrary and disproportionate and as such violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Advertisement No. 10 of 2023 concerned 2017 posts and Advertisement No. 11 of 2023 concerned 8 backlog posts; both were examined and resulted together, yet the latter is not mentioned in the cancellation. The petitioners submit that this unexplained distinction further indicates an absence of examination-specific consideration.

The consequences for untainted appointees are substantial: approximately 1932 serving appointees are affected, and around 600 candidates are stated to have resigned from earlier Government employment after the judicial directions. The long interval without a successful recruitment for these posts and the age profile of the candidates compound the prejudice. These circumstances do not protect fraudulent appointments, but require consideration of less injurious measures before wholesale cancellation.

In Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356, paragraphs 41, 44, 46, 50, 51, 58 and 69, the Court emphasised sufficient material gathered through a fair investigation, the distinction between proven mass cheating and allegations affecting serving civil servants, and the obligation to endeavour to segregate tainted candidates. Suspicion was held not to substitute for proof. In Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 644, paragraphs 26, 27, 32, 40 and 43, the protection of candidates found untainted following the segregation exercise was reiterated. These authorities support the petitioners’ objection to premature collective termination.

In Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu, (2003) 7 SCC 285, paragraph 6, cancellation of the entire selection was disapproved where scrutiny identified irregularities affecting 31 candidates and no pervasive infirmity justified denying appointment to the others. Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614, paragraphs 16, 19, 36 and 37, concerned a retest supported by vigilance material and explains the requirements of reasonableness and proportionality. Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 1990 Supp SCC 692, is similarly relied upon for a remedy confined to the defective interview stage rather than cancellation of the written examination.

Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board, (2021) 4 SCC 631, paragraph 35, distinguishes systemic irregularities warranting cancellation from identifiable individual wrongdoing. Although cancellation was upheld on the facts of that case, the principle remains that untainted candidates should not bear the consequences of others’ misconduct where segregation is possible. Vanshika Yadav, particularly paragraphs 39, 67, 68, 86 and 87, show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to order a fresh examination where widespread compromise was not established and beneficiaries of malpractice could be identified.

In Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673, paragraphs 36, 43, 45 and 56, the Court emphasised justice, equity and fair play, and disapproved indiscriminate cancellation prompted by controversy without examination of relevant facts. The petitioners invoke that reasoning against a collective response to protests which, on their case, substitutes public pressure for an objective assessment of this recruitment.

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners respectfully pray that the Notification dated 18.08.2026, bearing No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5408 of 2026, be quashed and set aside insofar as it cancels the recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 2023.

The petitioners further pray that their appointments and continuance in service be protected pending the final outcome of all criminal prosecutions, in accordance with the order dated 05.01.2026 in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 38545–38546 of 2025.

It has been categorically submitted that the petitioners undertake to cooperate with the investigation. The relief sought does not impede investigation, identification of beneficiaries of malpractice, or lawful action consistent with the earlier judicial directions.

The Respondent-State defends the cancellation of the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination-2023, arguing that systemic fraud compromised the entire recruitment process.

The Respondents seek to rely on CID enquiries, an FIR, arrests of Commission officials and agency directors, alleged OMR tampering, digital manipulation, and destruction of evidence.

The State argues that honest candidates cannot reliably be separated from beneficiaries because both original records and digital audit trails were compromised.

The respondents further contend that mass cancellation requires sufficient evidence of systemic irregularity—not criminal proof beyond reasonable doubt—and may proceed without individual hearings and hence the impugned decision, which is based on sufficient reasonable materials, needs no interference.

Rebutting the contention of the petitioners’ that cancellation is premature because the investigation is pending, the respondents have submitted that the executive is not required to defer action until criminal convictions are secured. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of T.N. v. A. Kalaimani, (2021) 16 SCC 217 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld cancellation while the investigation was actively underway and arrests were ongoing.

In so far as Article 311 argument of the petitioners is concerned, the State characterizes the action as annulment of a defective selection process, rather than punishment for individual misconduct and hence contends that the constitutional protection would not be available.

It was submitted that under the terms of Advertisement No. 01 of 2024, candidature remains strictly provisional at all stages. Selection confers no vested or indefeasible right to appointment unless the Government is satisfied as to suitability.

Further it was urged that the Jharkhand Competitive Examinations (Measures for Prevention and Prohibition of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2023 treats organized interference with public examinations as a severe statutory crime and the pending criminal prosecution invokes this statute.

On the scope of judicial review, it has been contended that courts should examine the decision’s supporting material and rationality, rather than substitute their own preferred remedy.

The Respondents have urged this Court to consider sealed-envelope material apart from the materials brought on record.

Two tables summarizing the supporting precedents and distinguishing the cases relied upon by the petitioners as prepared by the respondents is as follows:

Table 1: Summary of the authorities relied upon by the State:

Table 2: Summary of the authorities relied upon by the Petitioners and as distinguished from the present case

Lastly, it was submitted that the Division Bench in Prakash Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(PIL) No. 5717 of 2024, declined to quash the examination in a PIL because the material on record did not show official complicity or question paper leaks but expressly permitted the ongoing criminal investigation to continue and reserved the State's liberty to proceed against any further beneficiaries discovered during the investigation. Subsequent to that judgment, further complaints and CID investigation reports disclosed deeper institutional contamination, leading to the Cabinet decision dated 17.08.2026. Hence, it was contended, the earlier judgment of the Division Bench and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are of no help to the petitioner and consequently the principles of res judicata and estoppel in any form or substance do not come to the rescue of the petitioners.

The counsel for the applicants who had filed intervention application were permitted to address this Court, though their applications have not been allowed. Similar arguments to that of the State Government were advanced. Hence submission recorded on behalf of the State Government will also be treated to be their submissions.

In the light of the afore-stated facts and law the respondents have urged to dismiss the petition.

On perusal of the materials on record, the admitted facts that emerge are that the petitioners of the batch of writ petitions were appointed pursuant to the recruitment process initiated pursuant to Advertisement 10 of 2023 and the said process has been cancelled by the impugned Notification dated 18.08.2026, bearing No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5408 of 2026. On allegations of malpractice in the recruitment process and alleging that the process was tainted, an FIR was registered on the directions of this Court, and the investigation is still underway. Earlier a Division Bench of this Court refused to cancel the examination on the allegations of paper leak and other malpractices, which are more or less identical to what has been purportedly considered by the State Government while passing the impugned order. The Division Bench further directed the investigation to be carried out by a SIT within 6 months. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order of the High Court directed that the appointment of the petitioners shall be subject to the outcome of the final prosecution.

Having regard to the judgment and order passed in Prakash Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, W.P.(PIL) No. 5717 of 2024 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 38545–38546 of 2025, the impugned order has the effect to overreaching the same. Once the High Court and the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the issue, which is directly and substantially the same as the present one, the respondents only by claiming that some further material has been collected and further arrests had been made cannot undo the judgment and order of Constitutional Courts. The direction issued by the Division Bench permitting the investigation to be carried out further and complete the same within a time frame and also that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court making the appointments of these petitioners subject to the final outcome of the prosecution clearly indicates that the Hon’ble Courts were cognizant of the fact that further materials may or may not come against the candidates and despite that did not reserve any liberty with the State of Jharkhand to take a decision to cancel the concluded recruitment / examination process or terminate the services of all or any of the petitioners before the prosecution is complete.

In view of the above, there can be no hesitation to hold that State of Jharkhand has breached the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the impugned decision as contained in Notification dated 18.08.2026, bearing No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5408 of 2026 runs completely contrary to the said judgment and order and seeks to overreach the same.

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.

Records reveal that the State Government acting through its cabinet took the impugned decision, interalia, because of the protests. Reference was also made to the investigation. However, the cabinet note does not disclose what were the exact materials placed before it to arrive at the decision to cancel not only the present examination but 21 other examinations.

It is true that a writ court is not supposed to look into the sufficiency of the materials, but it is equally true that reasonable materials must exist, which must be considered to arrive at a conclusion and in absence thereof the decision is liable to be struck down as perverse.

The law with respect to the powers of the Government to cancel a recruitment process is no more res integra. At the same time, it is trite that a judgment is an authority only in regard to its ratio which is required to be discerned; and a decision cannot be regarded as an authority in regard to its conclusion alone or even in relation to what could be deduced therefrom. [ Suneja Towers (P) Ltd. v. Anita Merchant, (2023) 9 SCC 194]. Keeping this proposition of law let us examine the decisions on which the respondents have relied upon to test their applicability to the facts of this case.

In Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648, paragraphs 5 and 12, concerned mass copying at a particular examination centre, supported by answer-book comparison; it did not concern termination of serving appointees. Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti, (1998) 9 SCC 236, paragraph 2, involved contemporaneous reports of paper leakage, copying material and ineffective supervision, making identification of innocent candidates extremely difficult. The petitioners submit that comparable material is absent here.

Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat, paragraphs 7, 8, 10 and 22 concerned a concrete OMR anomalies, including 284 specially marked sheets and unusual familial and address patterns in the merit list. State of T.N. v. A. Kalaimani, (2021) 16 SCC 217, paragraph 14, concerned an initial enquiry identifying 196 beneficiaries of OMR manipulation before cancellation, followed by further investigative material. Those decisions cannot be applied mechanically to a case in which, according to the petitioners, neither comparable OMR manipulation; nor systemic compromise has been shown.

Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 615, paragraphs 46 – 49, 60, 70, 84, and 136, concerned a documented scheme affecting medical admissions over successive academic sessions. Action was taken against 634 identified beneficiaries. The identification of the beneficiaries upon due investigation / concluded enquiry forms the basis of this judgment rather than any proposition that unrelated, untainted candidates must also lose their appointments.

In State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee), (2025) 11 SCC 129, paragraphs 35, 37, 38, 39, 42 and 45, extensive material from CBI reports and the Justice (Retd.) Bag Committee, including rank jumping, out-of-panel appointments and manipulation of OMR scores. The Court’s conclusions rested on an in-depth factual enquiry demonstrating deliberate compromise of the selection process. There is no comparable foundation that has been disclosed in the present case.

The distinction between the evidentiary standard applicable to an administrative decision concerning systemic malpractice and proof of individual guilt in a criminal prosecution is beyond any quarrel. However, even the reasonable-certainty or probability standard discussed in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (supra) requires sufficient material obtained through a fair and thorough investigation. Neither the pendency of an investigation nor general allegations concerning several examinations dispense with that requirement or the consideration of segregation.

The Supreme Court of India Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614, upheld the State's decision to order a fresh examination as a valid bona fide executive choice by observing that the decision cannot be displaced on judicial review in the backdrop of an established case of paper leak and after completion of a vigilance enquiry. In the present case there is no in-depth enquiry concluded and a final report prepared. The facts are hazy and sketchy. The State except for making a bald assertion that segregation may not be possible has not assigned any reasons or disclosed any cogent material in support of such averment on affidavit.

In B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P., (2002) 5 SCC 533, case of paper leak stood established in the District of Anantapur and only in that District was the Examination cancelled. This clearly reflects application of mind and is a case where segregation was acted upon. Challenge was also negated on account of delay in approaching the Tribunal of first instance. The factual matrix in the present case is clearly different.

The Supreme Court of India in Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 165, interfered with the appointments after fraud was established after due enquiry was conducted and concluded by the CBI. To apply the ratio of this judgment the respondents ought to have firstly satisfied that a case of institutional fraud was established by materials and not on suspicion and it is only thereafter it was held that subsequent appointment cannot protect a selection born of institutional fraud.

Similarly, in Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 3 SCC 146, the report furnished by the CBI was relied upon before setting aside the appointments. The CBI concluded that answer sheet packets were stealthily opened and answers were filled up in the blank spaces left by the examinees and a clear difference of handwriting was noticed in many answer sheets. Similarly, interview marks were also found to be tampered.

In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, it was held that inclusion in a merit list or selection panel confers no indefeasible constitutional right to appointment.

There cannot be any difficulty in accepting the above proposition of law, However, in the present case the petitioners have already been appointed and therefore a right has been created and the same cannot be taken away without following the due process. It may, in a given case, be possible that prior notice or hearing be done away with, but such an exception can only be made when facts supporting such exercise are available on record.

In the present case as noted, the materials collected in an incomplete investigation cannot be pressed into service to do away with the principles of natural justice.

Further, the question whether segregation is possible or the beneficiaries are identifiable can only be answered after conclusion of the investigation and not before that. In any event in the present case the judgment of Prakash Kumar (supra) cannot be lost sight of and must be obeyed and hence decision on the continuance of the services of these petitioners would depend on the final outcome of the prosecution and not at any stage prior thereto.

In the light of the above discussions and the settled legal principles it is held that the Notification dated 18.08.2026, bearing No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5408 of 2026, cancelling the recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 2023, is liable to be quashed and set aside for the following reasons:

Accordingly, it is ordered that the Notification dated 18.08.2026, bearing No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5408 of 2026, cancelling the recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 2023 is quashed and set aside and the petitioners would be deemed to be in service with continuity in service without any break and they should not be denied of any service benefits, be it monetary or otherwise, on account of the impugned order.

However, the judgment dated 03.12.2025 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 5717 of 2024, and W.P. (S) No. 1476 of 2025 and the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 38545– 38546 of 2025 [Prakash Kumar Etc. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.] will continue to bind all concerned including the petitioners and the respondents and the appointment of the petitioners shall remain subject to final outcome of all criminal prosecution.

Further, the investigation must be carried out to its logical conclusion in a fair and free manner with a hope that the process be expedited. The petitioners must cooperate with the investigation. No observation made in this order will prejudice the ongoing investigation and it is made clear that the discussions made in this order are only for the purposes of the present proceedings.

Having regards to the aforesaid discussions, the writ petitions are allowed. Costs made easy. Pending I.As if any also stands disposed of.