RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on petitions challenging the cancellation of the JSSC-CGL recruitment process after hearing arguments from both sides. The hearing in the JPSC matter will continue on Friday, when the state government is expected to present its stand.
The court was hearing petitions against the government’s decision to cancel the JSSC-CGL recruitment. During the previous hearing, the state had submitted a sealed report on the investigation.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora and Advocate General Rohitashya Roy, appearing for the state, defended the cancellation, citing large-scale irregularities and financial transactions linked to the examination. The government said more than 28 arrests had been made and the investigation was continuing.
The state argued that, given the circumstances, it was not possible to distinguish between guilty and innocent candidates. It said the decision to cancel the CGL and other recruitment examinations was taken late on August 18 based on findings of the CID investigation.
The petitioners opposed cancellation of the entire examination and recruitment process. Senior Advocate Rajeev Ranjan argued that there was no evidence of a question paper leak from any examination centre.
Advocate Sonal Tiwary, appearing for successful candidates, said, "According to the state government, they have issued notices to 465 candidates, which itself indicates that they can segregate between the tainted and non-tainted candidates." She also questioned the absence of evidence of a paper leak.
The petitioners argued that the issue could instead involve candidates having prior knowledge of potential questions. They referred to 28 candidates in Nepal who had memorised potential questions, 10 of whom were successful.
They also pointed out that the results of these candidates had been withheld following a High Court order, which was later upheld by the Supreme Court.
The petitioners further argued that earlier judicial proceedings had stressed the need to distinguish between guilty and innocent candidates and that the recruitment process could proceed based on the outcome of the criminal case.
They also noted that the SIT investigation had continued for more than two years without a charge-sheet being filed, leaving the question of who was guilty and who was innocent unresolved.
Counsel for the petitioners said the High Court and Supreme Court had previously issued directions to segregate guilty candidates from innocent ones and determine appointments based on the criminal proceedings, but the government subsequently cancelled the entire recruitment process.