3 days ago
Jharkhand HC Maintains Recruitment Stay, Demands Government Reply
The Jharkhand government had cancelled some appointments made through recruitment exams.
Candidates who got those jobs challenged the decision in the High Court.
The court kept its earlier order stopping the cancellations in place.
It said the government must quickly explain its position.
The government said a CID investigation is still happening and that it would submit a report privately.
The government asked for more time, but the court did not grant the full extension.
People whose appointments are found to involve cheating could still lose their jobs later.
Reports disagree about whether the next hearing is on September 18 or October 18.
The Jharkhand High Court continued its interim stay on cancelling appointments linked to several recruitment examinations.
Affected recruitments include the 11th to 13th JPSC Combined Civil Services examinations, JPSC-CGL, CDPO, FSO and JSSC-CGL.
The court directed the state government to file its response or counter-affidavit by September 18, rejecting a longer extension request.
The government said it would submit a sealed-cover report on the ongoing CID investigation into the recruitment process.
Reports differ on the next hearing date, citing either September 18 or October 18 at 10:30 a.m.
- Who
- The Jharkhand government, affected candidates and employees, the Jharkhand High Court, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission and the CID.
- What
- The High Court continued its stay on appointment cancellations and ordered the government to file a response or counter-affidavit.
- Where
- The Jharkhand High Court in Ranchi.
- When
- The order was reported on Tuesday, September 15; the government’s response was due by September 18. Reports differ on the subsequent hearing date.
- Why
- Candidates challenged the government’s blanket cancellation of appointments linked to examinations involving TDPL, while the government is investigating the recruitment process.
Affected Candidates and Employees
State Government
Cancellation of appointments
Affected Candidates and Employees
They argued that cancelling appointments of candidates who cleared the competitive examinations would harm their rights, employment and future prospects.
State Government
The government cancelled appointments linked to examinations in which TDPL, a recruitment-test company, had played a role and is investigating the matter.
Time allowed for the government’s response
Affected Candidates and Employees
The petitioners urged fast consideration because the employment of many successful candidates was at stake.
State Government
The government sought additional time to file a detailed status report or affidavit; reports describe the request as either one week or four weeks, but the court rejected the longer extension and required a prompt response.
Status of affected employees
Affected Candidates and Employees
The petitioners and affected employees received interim protection and were allowed to continue in their posts while the case proceeds.
State Government
The government’s position remains subject to the investigation and final court decision; the court said appointments obtained through foul means could ultimately be terminated.
Key facts
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
- Judge
- Justice Deepak Roshan, also reported as Justice Deepak Roushan
- Interim protection
- The stay on cancellation or termination of the affected appointments remains in force
- Affected examinations
- JPSC 11th to 13th Combined Civil Services examinations, JPSC-CGL, CDPO, FSO and JSSC-CGL
- Response deadline
- September 18
- Investigation
- The state said it would submit a sealed-cover progress report on the ongoing CID investigation
- Possible consequences
- Candidates found to have obtained appointments through foul means could face termination
- Hearing-date discrepancy
- One report says the next hearing is September 18; another says October 18 at 10:30 a.m.
Quotes
One of the lawyers
A lawyer involved in the Jharkhand High Court case
“The court reiterated that it wanted to hear the case on a fast-track basis as it affects a large number of people. The state sought four weeks, but the court refused it.”
theprint.in






