The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the Jharkhand General Graduate Level Combined Competitive Examination (JGGLCCE-2023) conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC).
The JSSC had advertised 2021 posts, attracting approximately 6.4 lakh applicants. The initial examination scheduled for 28.01.2024 and 04.02.2024 was cancelled due to a prior paper leak. The re-examination was conducted on 21-22.09.2024 across 823 centres following a statewide internet shutdown. Post-examination complaints reached the Governor’s office, prompting a JSSC enquiry committee to find no evidence of leakage. The State registered FIRs and constituted an SIT, with forensic reports negating systemic leaks.
Petitioners alleged a coordinated conspiracy involving JSSC officials, post-exam payments indicating pre-leak access, and repeated JSSC irregularities. The State and JSSC countered that incidents reflected isolated scams rather than leaks, with question repeats aligning with Standard Operating Procedures, and no evidence emerged from the 10-month Special Investigation Team (SIT) and Forensic Science Laboratory probe; they attributed coaching motives to forcing re-exams for financial gain.
Teachers from coaching institutes filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a court-monitored SIT or independent central agency probe into alleged paper leaks, restraint on publishing results and issuing appointments until investigation completion, and directions for foolproof examination mechanisms. Unsuccessful candidates in connected writs sought quashing of JSSC Advertisements Nos. 10/2023 and 11/2023, the result notification dated 04.12.2024, and a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry, claiming the examination’s integrity was compromised in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar found that there was no concrete evidence to support paper leak claims, as allegations were confined to the General Studies paper on 22.09.2024 and explained by prior year question repeats. The SIT found no leaked paper, only scamster guesses matching 66 answers; uniform results across centres belied systemic issues.
The Court relied on Vanshika Yadav vs Union of India[1] for the threefold test, and directed that cancellation is only warranted when separating tainted from untainted candidates proves impossible, while prioritizing honest candidates. It rejected the petitioners’ locus standi in the PIL but adjudicated the case on merits due to public interest.
The Court dismissed all writ petitions and permitted the JSSC to proceed with document verification and appointments for the 2231 selected candidates. The judgement established that the examination’s sanctity remained uncompromised absent systemic irregularities, with allegations resting on conjecture and investigative materials (SIT/FSL reports) confirming no leak, only isolated fraud at 3 of 824 centres involving 10 qualifying candidates. The Court also mandated continuation of the SIT probe and the result of the 10 candidates who were involved in the maligned activity was made subject to the outcome of the investigation.
Cases relied on:
1. Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs State of W.B, (2004) 3 SCC 349
2. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2013) 4 SCC 465
3. Neetu vs. State of Punjab & Ors, (2007) 10 SCC 614
4. Union of India & Others vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 285
5. Joginder Pal and Others vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2014) 6 SCC 644
6. Sachin Kumar & Others vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSB) & Others, (2021) 4 SCC 631
7. State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattarcharya and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719
8. Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission & Others, 2025 Supreme (Pat) 182
9. Vanshika Yadav vs Union of India, 2024 9 SCC 743
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate; Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate; Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate; Ms. Satakchhi Priya Verma, Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Abhi, Advocate
For the State Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General; Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
For the Intervenors: Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayan Sr. Advocate; Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate; Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate; Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate; Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate; Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate; Mr. Bhawesh Kumar Tiwary, Advocate; Mr. Ram Subhag Singh, Advocate; Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate; Ms. Archana Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent JSSC: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate; Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
[1] 2024 9 SCC 743
