Ranchi, Sep 15 (IANS) :The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday continued its interim stay on the state government’s decision to cancel appointments made through several recruitment examinations, including the JPSC 11th to 13th Combined Civil Services Examinations, CDPO, FSO and JSSC-CGL.
A bench of Justice Deepak Roshan directed the state government to clarify its stand and submit a response within 48 hours. The matter will next be heard on September 18.
During the hearing, the state government informed the court that a report on the progress of the ongoing CID investigation would be submitted in a sealed cover.
The government also sought additional time to file an affidavit detailing the status of the probe and requested a week’s extension for the purpose. However, the court declined the request and allowed only 48 hours for filing the response.
The bench also orally observed that the matter concerns the future of a large number of candidates and employees who had secured appointments through the recruitment process, and therefore could not be subjected to unnecessary delays.
It also commented on the pace of the CID investigation and asked the government to provide a clear and time-bound update on the probe.
Appearing for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), advocate Sanjoy Piprawal presented the commission’s case. The petitioners were represented by senior advocate Indrajit Sinha along with advocates Amritansh Vats, Chanchal Jain and others.
The state government was represented by senior Supreme Court advocate Meenakshi Arora along with the Advocate General.
The controversy arose after the state government decided to cancel appointments linked to examinations in which TDPL, a company associated with conducting the recruitment tests, had played a role.
The government ordered the cancellation of appointments made through the JPSC 11th to 13th Combined Civil Services Examinations, JPSC-CGL, CDPO, FSO and JSSC-CGL, among others.
Candidates and employees affected by the decision subsequently moved the High Court, arguing that the blanket cancellation of appointments would adversely affect their rights and future prospects.
In earlier hearings, the High Court granted interim relief to the petitioners and stayed the government’s order, a protection that remains in force.
