PoliticsCourts
Jharkhand High Court quashes state's decision to cancel the JSSC CGL exam
Justice Deepak Roshan set aside the August 18 order scrapping the exam and the jobs given through it, and said the CID's probe into irregularities can go on.

Key points
- The High Court set aside the cancellation of the JSSC CGL exam and its appointments.
- It said selected candidates cannot be presumed guilty without concrete evidence.
- The CID investigation will continue under a retired judge's watch.
The Jharkhand High Court on Friday quashed the state government’s decision to cancel the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission’s Combined Graduate Level (CGL) examination and the appointments made through it, a relief for candidates who cleared the test and have been working under a court stay since August.
Justice Deepak Roshan, ruling on petitions filed by selected candidates in Ranchi, found that no concrete and clear grounds had been placed before the court to justify scrapping the whole examination. Cancelling the recruitment before the investigation was complete, the court held, was premature.
The court said selected candidates cannot be presumed guilty on the strength of allegations about the exam alone, and repeated its earlier direction that those picked through a fair process “should not be harassed in the name of the investigation”. A detailed written order is still to come.
A probe that goes on
The ruling does not end the inquiry. The CID’s investigation will continue, monitored by retired judge Gautam Kumar Choudhary, whom the court appointed in September, with retired IPS officer R K Mallik as nodal officer.
The exam was held on September 21 and 22, 2024. On August 18 this year the state cancelled it along with other recruitment tests, citing a CID report and aspirants’ protests, and later gave the court a sealed report alleging large-scale irregularities and systemic failures. The CID has arrested several people, including four successful candidates in August.
The petitioners, among them candidate Akash Gaurav, argued that anyone involved in wrongdoing could be identified and prosecuted, and that throwing out every appointment for the misconduct of a few was “neither fair nor justified”. The court had reserved its judgment on October 8.