2026:JHHC:26067

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(S) No. 2934 of 2026

……

1. Arpana Kumari, aged about 34 years, D/o Nawal Kishore

Nawal, R/o Village Kandtari, P.O. Sandh, P.S. Barkagaon &

District- Hazaribagh.

2. Komal Surin, aged about 32 years, S/o Anand Kumar

Surin, R/o Village Chiromatha, P.O. Raj Anandpur, P.S.

Manoharpur & District- West Singhbhum.

3. Jitendra Prasad, aged about 39 years, S/o Horil Prasad,

R/o Village Sarauni Kala, P.O. Rola, P.S. Muffsil & District-

Hazaribagh.

4. Neelam Kumari, aged about 43 years, D/o Uma Shankar

Mahto, R/o Village Lower Karamtoli, P.O. Morabadi, P.S.

Lalpur & District- Ranchi.

5. Digamber Prasad, aged about 38 years, S/o Hingu Lal

Mahto, R/o Village- Kundru Khurd (Prasachhapar), P.O.

Kundru Kalan, P.S. Ramgarh & District- Ramgarh.

6. Ramdeo Dangi, aged about 40 years, S/o Jeevlal Dangi,

R/o Village Singhani, P.O., P.S. Pathalgadha & District-

Chatra.

7. Namrata Mishra @ Namrata Devi, aged about 41 years,

W/o Arvind Kumar Tiwari, R/o Village Kudra, P.O., P.S. Sisai

& District- Gumla.

8. Pintu Kumar Saw, aged about 35 years, S/o Sobha Saw,

R/o Village Chainpur, P.O. Maharajganj, P.S. Govindpur &

District- Dhanbad.

9. Kshitiz Raj, aged about 36 years, S/o Awadhesh Mahto,

R/o Village Darudih, P.O. Sangbar, P.S. Lesliganj, & District-

Palamu.

10. Sarita Kumari, aged about 41 years, D/o Hare Ram

Thakur, R/o Village En-03 Annoda Apt., South Office Para,

Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda & District- Ranchi.

11. Shatabdi Mondal, aged about 31 years, D/o Deepak

Kumar Mondal, R/o Village Amlajora, P.O. Nala, P.S. Nala,

District- Jamtara.

12. Vicky Kumar Mahato, aged about 32 years, S/o Krishna

Prasad Mahato, R/o Village Kandra, P.O. Ramnagar Garh,

P.S. Mahuda & District- Dhanbad.

13. Sudhanshu Kumar Vishwakarma, aged about 28 years,

S/o Lekhraj Vishwakarma, R/o Village Jamtara, P.O.

Jamtara, P.S. Dumri & District- Giridih.

14. Nishant Kumar, aged about 29 years, S/o Ashok Prasad,

R/o Village Ramdeo Kharika, P.O. Maheshra, P.S. Daru &

District- Hazaribagh.

15. Anup Kumar, aged about 31 years, S/o Sohan Ram, R/o

Village Kanchan Nagri, P.O., P.S. Chandwa & District-

Latehar.

2026:JHHC:26067

2

16. Deepu Mukherjee, aged about 31 years, S/o Abni Dhar

Mukherjee, R/o Village- Gandhi Nagar, Kanke, P.O. Kanke,

P.S. Gonda & District- Ranchi.

17. Seema Kumari, aged about 34 years, D/o Nabulal

Karmali, R/o Village Childag, P.O. Childag, P.S. Angara &

District- Ranchi.

18. Archna Kumari, aged about 29 years, D/o Pramod

Prasad, R/o Village Rusu, P.O., P.S. Kersai & District-

Simdega.

19. Sunita Kumari, aged about 43 years, D/o Raghunath

Mishra, R/o Village Indrapuri, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdev

Nagar & District- Ranchi.

20. Hemant Mahato, aged about 43 years, S/o Mukund Lal

Mahato, R/o Vill- Khiri, P.O. Soro, P.S. Ichagarh & District-

Seraikela Kharsawan. …. Petitioner(s)

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary,

having its office at 1st floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.,

P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, School, Education & Literacy Department,

Government of Jharkhand, officiating at MDI Bhavan, Ground

Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District- Ranchi.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, School, Education &

Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at

MDI Bhavan, Ground Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District-

Ranchi.

4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its

Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District- Ranchi.

5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,

having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S.

Namkum & District- Ranchi.

6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District- Ranchi. …..Respondent (s)

With

W.P.(S) No. 3401 of 2026

……

1. Prabha Suri, Age about 38 Years, D/o Late Mahesh Suri,

R/o Nayatoli, P.O. - Kantatoli, P.S.- Lower Bazar, District-

Ranchi, Jharkhand.

2. Surendra Thakur, Age about 35 Years, S/o Sanichar

Thakur, R/o Rajodih, P.O. Nawagarh Chatti, P.S. Dhanwar,

District- Giridih, Jharkhand.

3. Saroj Kumari, Age about 38 Years, S/o Rambrit Ram, R/o

Balu, P.O.-Kokdoro, P.S.- Pithoria, District- Ranchi,

Jharkhand.

2026:JHHC:26067

3

4. Vijay Kumar, Age about 40 Years, S/o Jugal Mahto, R/o

Village-Baridih, P.O.- Baridih, P.S.- Ormanjhi, District-

Ranchi, Jharkhand.

5. Anju Kumari, Age about 42 Years, D/o Nirbhay Kumar

Singh, R/o Kanjiya, P.O.- Bedhana, P.S.- Itkhori, District-

Chatra, Jharkhand.

6. Alok Kumar Yadav, Age about 37 Years, S/o Balram Yadav,

R/o Village & P.O.- Badla, P.S.- Senha, District- Lohardaga,

Jharkhand. …. Petitioner(s)

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Principal Secretary,

Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of

Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi.

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of School

Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, M.D.I. Building,

Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Ranchi.

3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its

Secretary, Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-

Namkum Ranchi.

4. Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, Kalinagar, Chaay Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S.-

Namkum, Ranchi. …..Respondent (s)

With

W.P.(S) No. 3441 of 2026

……

1. Jyoti Kumari, aged about 30 years, D/o Hari Narayan

Yadav, R/o 147, Shukla Colony, Hinoo, P.O., P.S. Doranda &

District- Ranchi.

2. Shruti Sen, aged about 25 years, D/o Tarani Sen Mahto,

R/o Village Dokad, P.O. Rahe, P.S. Dokad & District- Ranchi.

3. Deepa Kumari, aged about 30 years, D/o Dinesh Kumar

Mahato, R/o Village Garbhudih, P.O., P.S. Ladpur & District-

Dhanbad.

4. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri

Laxman Sahu, R/o Village Kuru Nawa Toli, P.O., P.S. Kuru &

District- Lohardaga.

5. Lakshman Nayak, aged about 35 years, S/o Devi Nayak,

R/o Village Karambu, P.O. Baredih, P.S. Karambu & District-

Ranchi.

6. Upendra Kumar Yadav, aged about 30 years, S/o

Satyendra Yadav, R/o Village Tota, P.O. Sasang, P.S.

Chandwa & District- Latehar.

7. Bipin Kishor Khalkho, aged about 46 years, S/o Kunwar

Khalkho, R/o Village Chittar Kota Barka Toli, P.O., P.S. Pali &

District- Ranchi.

8. Rohit Kumar Karpur, aged about 36 years, S/o Mahendra

Karpur, R/o Village Mahthandih, P.O. Domchanch Bazar,

P.S. Koderma & District- Koderma. …. Petitioner(s)

-VERSUS-

2026:JHHC:26067

4

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary,

having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.,

P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, School, Education & Literacy Department,

Government of Jharkhand, officiating at MDI Bhavan, Ground

Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District- Ranchi.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, School, Education &

Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at

MDI Bhavan, Ground Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District-

Ranchi.

4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its

Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District- Ranchi.

5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,

having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S.

Namkum & District- Ranchi.

6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District- Ranchi. …..Respondent (s)

With

W.P.(S) No. 3442 of 2026

……

1. Simran Choudhary, aged about 30 years, D/o

Subhashchandra Choudhary, R/o Village Suardahi, P.O.

Suardahi, P.S. Mohanpur, District – Deoghar, Jharkhand.

2. Karan Anand, aged about 37 years, S/o Prasuram Pandit,

R/o Village Lahadih, P.O. Bahadurchak, P.S. Thakurgangti,

District – Godda, Jharkhand.

3. Dinesh Rajak, aged about 33 years, S/o Puran Rajak, R/o

Village Purnikharkhari, P.O. Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Birni,

District – Giridih, Jharkhand.

4. Nasim Ansari, aged about 36 years, S/o Yusuf Ansari, R/o

Village Baramsoli, P.O. Asna, P.S. Palojori, District – Deoghar,

Jharkhand.

5. Kamrul Ansari, aged about 37 years, S/o Safik Ansari, R/o

Village Dumariya, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar, District –

Deoghar, Jharkhand.

6. Md. Shahjada, aged about 42 years, S/o Md Athar Ali, R/o

Village Chaktarana, P.O. Palojori, P.S. Palojori, District –

Deoghar, Jharkhand.

7. Anju Rani, aged about 35 years, D/o Uday Kumar Mehta,

R/o Village Senha, Barwa Toli, P.O. Senha, P.S. Senha,

District – Lohardaga, Jharkhand.

8. Tarkeshwar Mahto, aged about 39 years, S/o Bhajohari

Mahto, R/o Village Bela, P.O. Rahe, P.S. Sonahatu, District –

Ranchi, Jharkhand.

9. Puja Bharti, aged about 29 years, D/o Ajit Kumar Bharma,

R/o 224/25 Behind SP Kothi, Dipughara, P.O. Hazaribagh,

P.S. Hazaribagh, District – Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

2026:JHHC:26067

5

10. Jaya Bharti, aged about 30 years, D/o Ajit Kumar

Bharma, R/o 224/25 Behind SP Kothi, Dipughara, P.O.

Hazaribagh, P.S. Hazaribagh, District – Hazaribagh,

Jharkhand.

11. Jay Prakash Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Sudhir

Mehta, R/o Village Delha, P.O. Tarhasi, P.S. Tarhasi, District

– Palamau, Jharkhand.

12. Abhishek Kumar, aged about 27 years, S/o Pankaj

Kumar Sinha, R/o Village Pokhariyadih, P.O. Mandramo, P.S.

Suriya, District – Giridih, Jharkhand. ….Petitioner(s)

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary,

having its office at 1st floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.,

P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, School, Education & Literacy Department,

Government of Jharkhand, officiating at MDI Bhavan, Ground

Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District – Ranchi.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, School, Education &

Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at

MDI Bhavan, Ground Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District –

Ranchi.

4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its

Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi.

5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,

having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S.

Namkum & District – Ranchi.

6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi. .. ..Respondent (s)

With

W.P.(S) No. 4017 of 2026

……

1. Priyanka Soren, aged about 40 years, D/o Marshalious

Ansum, Village-Dhamour, P.O., P.S. Dhmpur, & District-

Sahebganj.

2. Suresh Nayak, aged about 37 years, D/o Govind Saw, R/o

Village Chiglama, P.O. Chuglano, P.S. Barkattha & District-

Hazaribagh.

3. Pradip Prasad, aged about 35 years, S/o Basudev Prasad,

R/o Village Jhunjhuri, P.O. Jhunjhuri, P.S. Barkattha &

District- Hazaribagh.

4. Smriti Kumari, aged about 29 years, D/o Subas Modi, R/o

Village Pethiyabagi, P.O., P.S. Jainagar & District- Koderma.

5. Durgi Lal Prasad, aged about 38 years, S/o Hiralal Mahto,

R/o Village Jhunjhuri, P.O. Jhunjhuri, P.S. Barkattha &

District- Hazaribagh.

6. Raghunandan Pandey, aged about 33 years, S/o Durga

Prasad Pandey, R/o Sabara, P.O. Chandra, P.S.

Chandan-kiyari & District- Bokaro.

2026:JHHC:26067

6

7. Pankaj Kumar Verma, aged about 28 years, S/o Baldeo

Mahto, R/o Village Sakhaibad, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Jamua &

District- Giridih.

8. Laljeet Prasad Verma, aged about 31 years, S/o

Dipnarayan Mahto, R/o Village Sakhaibad, P.O. Dumka, P.S.

Jamua & District- Giridih.

9. Laxman Kumar Mahto, aged about 39 years, S/o Fani

Bhushan Mahto, R/o Village Chitodih, P.O. Reladih, P.S.

Bundu & District- Ranchi.. …. Petitioner(s)

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary,

having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.,

P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, School, Education & Literacy Department,

Government of Jharkhand, officiating at MDI Bhavan, Ground

Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District- Ranchi.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, School, Education &

Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at

MDI Bhavan, Ground Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District-

Ranchi.

4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its

Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District- Ranchi.

5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,

having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S.

Namkum & District- Ranchi.

6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District- Ranchi. …..Respondent (s)

With

W.P.(S) No. 4818 of 2026

……

1. Neha Kumari, aged about 25 years, D/o Raj Kishor Sahu,

R/o Village Sangrampur, P.O. Boreya, P.S. Kanke & District –

Ranchi.

2. Sarita Kumari, aged about 40 years, W/o Dr. Deepak

Kumar, R/o Village Parsabad, Katia P.O. Parsabad, P.S.

Jainagar & District – Koderma.

3. Rita Kumari, aged about 39 years, W/o Sunil Kumar, R/o

Okni Teli Tola, Near Chota Shiv Mandir, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S.

Sadar & District – Hazaribagh.

4. Nitish Kumar, aged about 26 years, S/o Niranjan Kumar,

R/o Village Horiya, P.O. Kuttipisi, P.S. Katkamsandi &

District – Hazaribagh.

5. Pinky Devi, aged about 39 years, D/o Arun Sahu, R/o

Village Parhepat, P.O., P.S. Kisko & District – Lohardaga.

6. Devasish Jha, aged about 26 years, D/o Brajesh Chandra

Jha, R/o Village Lakhanpahari, P.O. Bandanwar, P.S.

Pathargama & District – Godda.

2026:JHHC:26067

7

7. Vishal Kumar Sharma, aged about 38 years, S/o Chhedi

Thakur, R/o H. No. 58, Village Sangrampur, P.O.

Sangrampur, P.S. Gola & District – Ramgarh.

8. Kunti Kumari, aged about 28 years, D/o Nehru Sahu, R/o

Village Saipur, P.O., P.S. Simdega & District – Simdega.

9. Anupriya Ray, aged about 31 years, D/o Subhankar Ray,

R/o Village Kadampur, P.O. Amlachatar, P.S. Jama & District

– Dumka.

10. Ashok Kumar, aged about 37 years, S/o Kamla

Choudhary, R/o Quarter No. 1318, Street-07, Sector-8/A,

P.O. Sector-9, P.S. Harla & District – Bokaro.

11. Priyesh Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Sanjay Kumar

Singh, R/o Village Palangi, P.O. Ambatand, P.S. Rajdhanwar

& District – Giridih.

12. Randhir Kumar Dubey, aged about 34 years, S/o Ujjwal

Dubey, R/o Village Baledeweri, P.O. Pandu, P.S. Keredari &

District – Hazaribagh.

13. Pratima Kumari, aged about 44 years, D/o Uday Mahto,

R/o Village Sahijana, P.O., P.S. Garhwa & District – Garhwa.

14. Prem Kumar, aged about 28 years, S/o Loknath Mahto,

R/o Village Kedla, P.O. Kedla, P.S. Mandu & District –

Ramgarh.

15. Ramswarup Kumar Mahto, aged about 35 years, S/o

Babuli Mahto, R/o Village Karra, P.O. Saraiya, P.S. Padma &

District – Hazaribagh. …. Petitioner(s)

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary,

having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.,

P.S. Dhurwa & District – Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, School, Education & Literacy Department,

Government of Jharkhand, officiating at MDI Bhavan, Ground

Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District – Ranchi.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, School, Education &

Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at

MDI Bhavan, Ground Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District –

Ranchi.

4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its

Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi.

5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,

having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S.

Namkum & District – Ranchi.

6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi. …..Respondent (s)

With

W.P.(S) No. 6039 of 2026

……

2026:JHHC:26067

8

1. Rita Kumari, aged about 29 years, D/o Baldeo Prasad, R/o

Village Gaipahari, P.O. Kalhabad, P.S. Barkatha & District-

Hazaribagh.

2. Seema Lalita Minj, aged about 37 years, D/o Justin Minz,

R/o Village Ranikhatanga, P.O. Ranikhatanga, P.S. Itki &

District- Ranchi.

3. Shalu Jayswal, aged about 37 years, D/o Meghnath Prasad

Jayswal, R/o 29, Kanke Road, Near Jawahar Nagar, Shree

Bhandar, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda & District-

Ranchi.

4. Vikram Kumar Gope, aged about 29 years, S/o Puran

Gope, R/o Village Telgaon, P.O. Telgaon, P.S. Gumla &

District- Gumla.

5. Anita Kindo, aged about 38 years, D/o Bandhan Kindo,

R/o Near Sisai Road, Puggu Champa Nagar, P.O. Armai, P.S.

Gumla & District- Gumla.

6. Kishun Lal Mahto, aged about 40 years, S/o Mehi Lal

Mahto, R/o Village Muraidihbasti, Near Hari Mandir, P.O.

Pochari, P.S. Barora & District- Dhanbad.

7. Sangam Navin Kumar Yadav, aged about 37 years, S/o

Ram Janma Yadav, R/o Village Sheetal Dawani, P.O. Shital

Dawani, P.S. Bansdih Road, District- Ballia & State-Uttar

Pradesh, PIN-277203.. …. Petitioner(s)

-VERSUS-

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary,

having its office at 1st floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.,

P.S. Dhurwa & District- Ranchi.

2. The Secretary, School, Education & Literacy Department,

Government of Jharkhand, officiating at MDI Bhavan, Ground

Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District- Ranchi.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, School, Education &

Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, officiating at

MDI Bhavan, Ground Floor, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District-

Ranchi.

4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its

Secretary, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District- Ranchi.

5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,

having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S.

Namkum & District- Ranchi.

6. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O.,

P.S. Namkum & District- Ranchi.

…..Respondent (s)

……

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Rupesh Singh, Chanchal Jain,

Abhishek Kumar, Abhijeet Indra Guru,

Sunil Kumar Mahto, Kunari Neha,

2026:JHHC:26067

9

Shubham Mishra, Gyandev Ran, Kazi

Asif Iqubal, Advocates

For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate

Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate

For the Intervenors : Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Singh, Advocate

Mr. Karandeo, Advocate

……

09/29.08.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 2934 of 2026 have

prayed for following releifs:

A) Direction upon the respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to show

cause why the response keys of the petitioners have not been released while

response keys of other candidates have been made available and have thereby

deprived the petitioners to raise objection against the provisional answer key.

B) Direction upon the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to issue and/or

enable access to the response key of the petitioners and grant reasonable

opportunity to submit their objections.

C) To stay the selection process in connection with advertisement No. 2 of 2025

D) Quashing of the notice dated 23 April 2026 whereby a decision has been taken

to conduct the re-examination of the petitioners along with several others, in as

many as 2819 candidates have been directed to appear in re-examination on

08.05.2026.

3. In these batch of writ petitions, demands of all the

petitioners across the writ petitions is in relation to the

recruitment process for appointment of secondary school

teachers for classes 9 to 12. Hence the batch of writ petitions

are disposed of by this common order.

4. Admitted position which comes out from the

pleadings of the rival parties is that on 20 May 2025, the

Recruitment and Service conditions Rules for Secondary

School Teachers were notified by the State Government.

2026:JHHC:26067

10

5. Sometime in June 2025, the advertisement inviting

application for the post of secondary school teachers was

published.

6. On 6 January 2026, it was informed by notice that

examination of Paper-I consisting of Computer Knowledge,

General knowledge, Hindi and English will be conducted on

15 January 2026 in different Centres across the district of

Ranchi.

7. The examination for both Paper-I as also Paper-II

were conducted on various dates between 15 January 2026

to 22 February 2026. Paper-I was qualifying exam and

Paper-II was material for determination of merit.

8. The writ petition being W.P (S) No. 2934 of 2026was

listed before this Bench on 27 April 2026 and it was informed

to this Court by the parties that related issue was pending

before the Division bench of this Court in WP (PIL) No. 2375 of

2024. Accordingly, this writ petition was directed to be listed

along with the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation.

9. As the order-sheet discloses that the matter was

heard before the Division Bench on 7

th of May 2026 and on

that day, the petitioners have prayed for interim relief/ad-

interim injunction against the respondents, restraining them

from conducting the re-examination scheduled on 8

th and 9

th

of May 2026.

2026:JHHC:26067

11

10. The Division Bench of this Court by a detailed order

refused to entertain the interim relief prayed by the writ

petitioners on a prima facie opinion that the balance of

convenience weighs heavily against the grant of such interim

relief.

11. However, the Division bench permitted the

petitioners to download their admit cards and appear for the

re-examination without prejudice or under protest. The

Division bench also noted that the petitioners are at liberty to

appear in the re-examination without prejudice to the rights

and contentions in these petitions.

12. On 18 August 2026, after hearing the parties, this

Court posted the matter on 24 August 2026 for further

hearing on the issue as to whether an enquiry or

investigation should be ordered for the malpractices

committed in the 1

st round of examination for Paper-II. It is

an admitted position that malpractices have been committed

in the examination of Paper-II in the first round.

13. The order dated 18 August 2026 reads as under:-

“1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. List this case on 24th August 2026 at 12:15 P.M. on the issue as to

whether any enquiry or investigation should be ordered for the

malpractice committed in the first round of examination which is an

admitted position, now in the background that the respondent

(Commission) has already taken re-examination and all the petitioners

herein, have almost appeared in the examination and also few of them

are successful and, finally they are not against the re-examination

result, but the grievance of these petitioners confines only with regard to

investigation with regard to first round of examination in the light of Act

of 2023.”

2026:JHHC:26067

12

14. Counsel for the petitioners have drawn attention of

this Court to “the Jharkhand Competitive Examination

(Measures for Control and Prevention of Unfair means in

Recruitment) Act, 2023”.

15. Referring to the various Sections of the aforesaid Act

of 2023, the petitioners have submitted that looking to the

documents enclosed as Annexures- 6, 7 & 8 to the writ

petition in WPS No. 2934 of 2026 which are screenshots of

the WhatsApp messages and/or emails received by the

petitioners from the respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission, it is ostensible that the respondents have

informed the petitioners with respect to suspicious activities

and instances of unauthorized multiple logins during

examination process which included unauthorized access

methods and malpractices; such as, use of compromised

input devices, the online examination Station terminal of the

petitioners were reported under review in view of the

provisions of the Act of 2023.

16. Annexure 7 to the writ petition is a notice dated 30

March 2026 issued after almost one and half months of the

examination of II

nd paper in the 1

st round which had put the

candidates like the petitioners on notice asking them to

regularly check their emails and/or SMS on account of

suspicious activities/unauthorized access.

2026:JHHC:26067

13

17. Annexure 6 is another screenshot of the WhatsApp

message/SMS informing the candidates/petitioners that their

online examination Station Terminal Nos. are under review

under Section 5 (c) of the Act of 2023 due to suspicious

activity and multiple instances of attempted unauthorized

access.

18. Referring to a communication dated 3

rd of April 2026,

it is submitted by the petitioners that they were directed to

submit an affidavit duly notarized in the enclosed format,

establishing that they were not involved in such activities and

the said affidavit was to be submitted by the candidate before

the Respondent-Commission by 10

th of April 2026; failing

which the commission would be entitled to initiate

appropriate action against the candidate.

19. The petitioners contend that in compliance to the

aforesaid directive they submitted their notarized affidavits

before the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission.

20. As per the notice dated 15 April 2026, the

respondent Commission issued the final answer key on their

website after considering the objections of the candidates to

the provisional answer key but the Petitioners were

prohibited from logging to see the Response Key/Answer key

of the petitioners as also the final answer key published by

the Commission.

2026:JHHC:26067

14

21. On 23 April 2026, the respondent Commission

issued another notice, whereby list of 2819 roll numbers of

the candidates were published, informing them that on

account of suspicious activity/unauthorized access/technical

error noted in the Paper- II, re- examination is to be

conducted on 08.05.2026.

22. While referring to the counter affidavit filed by the

respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, attention

of this Court has been drawn to annexure wherein a chart

has been enclosed which indicates that the total number of

candidates who appeared in the re-examination were 2355,

total number of absent candidates were 482 and the total

count of the candidates comes to 2837.

23. It has been argued by the petitioners that it was an

admitted position by the respondents before the Division

bench as also in the counter affidavit by way of Annexure G

which is a notice dated 23 April 2026 containing a list of roll

numbers of various candidates totalling to 2819 candidates

who were informed that the Paper-II is scheduled on 8

th of

May 2026 and separate admit card for the re-examination

would be issued. However, the total number of candidates

who were permitted to appear in the re-examination as per

Annexure–H to the counter affidavit is 2837 and this increase

in the count of the candidates is completely unexplained.

2026:JHHC:26067

15

24. The petitioners contend that in the garb of

conducting the examination of 2819 candidates, the

respondents have illegally included/ permitted 18 more

candidates to appear in re-examination.

25. In response to this, the counsel for the respondent

Commission has tried to justify by submitting that several

candidates had applied for appointment to the post of

secondary school teachers in various subjects and as such

candidates having the same roll number had appeared in the

re-examination of different subjects thereby resulting in

difference in the count of candidates who had appeared in the

re-examination.

26. Such a submission on part of the respondent

Commission is neither pleaded in the counter affidavit, nor

indicated from the concerned documents. It does not inspire

the confidence of this Court because the Respondent

Commission has not brought on record complete details of

the 2819 candidates to buttress their submission.

27. The Court is not provided with the complete details

and information by the Respondent Commission, which is in

their custody. The Counter affidavit filed by the Respondent

Commission is more or less a chronology of events in the

examination process.

2026:JHHC:26067

16

28. While referring to Annexure ‘E’ at page 33 to the

counter affidavit, the petitioners have contended that looking

to the list of the candidates appearing therein, who are

petitioners in WPS No. 2934 of 2026, it is evident that for two

candidates including Jitendra Prasad and Deepu Mukherjee;

no details have been indicated in the column indicating

network data pertaining to Computer Science subject. This

indicates that no material is available to support the

conclusion of the JSSC in relation to examination of

Computer Science by the two petitioners.

29. It is further contended that details in the IP address

and the network data column of the chart enclosed to the

counter affidavit does not satisfy the contention of the

respondent that the computer at the terminal allotted to the

concerned petitioners were compromised and/or attempted to

be logged in through unauthorized sources, inasmuch as, no

details of such unauthorized sources like IP address and the

network data are reflected in the chart.

30. As per the submission of the Counsel of the

Respondents, the details of IP address and Network Data in

the chart is original detail and not the unauthorized access

detail.

31. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the

conclusion arrived at by the respondent Jharkhand Staff

2026:JHHC:26067

17

Selection Commission to conduct the re-examination of 2819

candidates has been arrived at on the basis of a

report/information furnished by the contractor agency who

was entrusted to carry out the examination at the relevant

examination Centres in the district of Ranchi.

32. The Respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission has attempted to persuade the Court that in the

light of the information furnished by the agency entrusted to

conduct the examination, regarding unauthorized

access/multiple attempts of login from external sources etc.,

the Respondents have acted bonafide and have been able to

segregate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones.

33. This Court upon perusal of Annexure-E at page 33 of

the counter affidavit, finds that the chart enclosed thereto

with respect to the petitioners of the writ petition does not

disclose the authorized and authentic IP address and

Network data along with the unauthorized IP address and

Network data by which it is alleged to have been attempted to

login the system of online examination.

34. Even by way of sample, the respondents have not

brought on record the details of few non-tainted candidates

who have been segregated from the alleged tainted candidates

and thereafter exempted from re-examination, to demonstrate

the authenticity of their decision.

2026:JHHC:26067

18

35. Section 5 of the Act of 2023 deals with possession of

leakage of question paper or part thereof. Sub-Section (c) of

Section-5 mandates that any person authorized by virtue of

his duties shall not disclose the details of question paper in

online examination to any unauthorized person, shall not

tamper with any computer, local area network or server in

order to do so.

36. Section-11 of the aforesaid Act provides that when

the offence under the Act is committed by any management

or institution or service provider contracted or ordered for

examination; every person who at the time when the offence

was committed was in charge of the business of the

management or institution or service provider etc., for

conducting the examination, they shall be deemed to be

guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be prosecuted

against and punished.

37. Thus, a wholesome reading of the Act of 2023 makes

it abundantly clear that the respondents are duty bound to

institute a criminal prosecution in the event of any

malpractices committed in the conduct of the examination.

Surprisingly, the respondents in the counter affidavit have

averred that they have adopted a lenient view and have not

debarred the candidates allegedly involved in malpractices

2026:JHHC:26067

19

and have permitted them to appear in re-examination in

interest of justice.

38. This Court is unable to appreciate such benevolent

conduct of the Respondent-Commission which does not

conform to the provisions of the Act of 2023. It appears that

the respondents are avoiding institution of criminal

prosecution in order to protect the actual culprits which may

be their own officers/employees or the agency contracted or

ordered for conducting the examination and/or the concerned

computer Centres which were nominated as examination

centres.

39. Nowhere it has been pleaded that any action has

been taken against the concerned computer Centres where

the candidates have been alleged to be involved in

unauthorized access and/or indulging in malpractices.

40. This Court is unable to appreciate that how the

respondent Commission has come to the conclusive decision

that the alleged irregularity/illegalities/malpractices/access

through unauthorized sources in the online examination was

attempted solely through the candidates who have been made

to appear in the re-examination and that the management of

the examination Centre or the agency contracted for

conducting the examination are nowhere involved in the said

malpractices.

2026:JHHC:26067

20

41. As it transpired in the course of hearing, the

respondent Commission has not even issued any show cause

notice or blacklisted the concerned examination Centre where

such alleged illegalities have been committed.

42. The petitioners while referring to Annexure-E at page

33 to the counter affidavit have submitted that evidently and

apparently from the list of examination Centres indicated

therein, a total of 15 Centres have been named in the list

where the alleged illegality has been committed in relation to

the petitioners in single writ petition.

43. It has been orally submitted by the petitioners that

approximately 30 to 35 Centres were nominated for

conducting the online examination and almost 50% of such

Centres (where the petitioners appeared in the examination)

have been found to be affected by the malpractices committed

in the online examination as per Annexure ‘E’ to the counter

affidavit.

44. It is next submitted by the Petitioners that had the

entire list of examination Centres disclosed by the

Respondent with the details of the 2819 candidates, probably

all the Centres would have been found to be involved in the

illegality/malpractices.

45. Having heard the contentions of the rival parties, this

Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners and other

2026:JHHC:26067

21

candidates have appeared in the re-examination conducted

by the Respondent Commission, in the light of the order

passed by the Division bench on 7

th of May 2026, it would not

be in the interest of justice to interdict the process of

recruitment by halting the process of appointment.

46. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the

Division Bench while refusing the interim relief to the

petitioners has held that the appearance in the re-

examination would be without prejudice to their rights and

contentions in these petitions.

47. It is an admitted position that the conduct of the

examination by the Respondent Commission is based upon

the information/report submitted by the contractor agency

entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the online

examination and not by any independent third-party agency.

48. Such an action by the Respondent Commission

solely on the basis of the report of the Contractor agency

amounts to being ‘Judge of his own cause’.

49. The Contracted agency who cannot conduct the

examination fairly has been given a clean chit by the

Respondent Commission on the basis of the report submitted

by the concerned agency itself. Till date, the respondent

Commission has not proceeded with any full-fledged third-

party enquiry through an expert to identify and pinpoint the

2026:JHHC:26067

22

sources and the persons as also the location from where the

alleged attempts of repeated login were made in the online

examination with different IP address and network data.

50. It is an established position in law that no one can be

the judge of his own cause and that justice should not only

be done but should also appear to have been done.

51. Considering the provisions of law in the Act of 2023,

this Court is unable to appreciate as to why the respondents

are shying away from enquiry/investigation by a third-party

agency including criminal prosecution. Charity against the

law and sympathy beyond Law (legislative mandate) amounts

to perpetuating illegality.

52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vanshika

Yadav reported in (2024) 9 SCC 743 para 103, has held that

all instances of use of unfair means must be dealt with

firmly.

53. It has been urged by the Petitioners that there may

be systemic flaws in the conduct of examination and a more

thorough process needs to be put in place to investigate the

alleged illegality. It has been urged that though the

Petitioners are the candidates who have been put under

suspicion by the Respondent Commission but they are

themselves seeking criminal investigation in the matter as

they are rest assured about their innocence.

2026:JHHC:26067

23

54. The Petitioners have submitted that if criminal

investigation is not conducted, not only the real culprits

would go scort-free but it would further embolden the

offenders to indulge in further attempts in future

examinations thereby jeopardizing the recruitment process in

the State.

55. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

west Bengal Vs. Baisakhi Bhattacharya reported in 2025

SCC Online SC 719 vide Para 19 has held as here under:

“19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:

• When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as

malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process,

the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible,

segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in

consonance with fairness and equity.

• The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the

satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and

thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to

conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of

evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability

test is applicable.

• Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad

and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage

has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process.

• Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for

practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is

vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.”

56. In view of the above principle laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court, it is not in the interest of justice to

cancel the entire selection process in the present

circumstances.

57. However, thorough and fair investigation in the

matter is necessary to identify the actual culprits, in order to

ensure that the offenders are put to justice and

sufferers/victims are not harassed due to any motivated

2026:JHHC:26067

24

action by the persons at the helm of affair. This would not

only repose the faith of the innocent meritorious candidates

in the examination system and the judiciary but also act as a

deterrent to the offenders.

58. It is beyond logic and reasoning as to why the

respondent-Commission till date has not lodged any F.I.R.

and is relying on the Contracted Agency’ report, when the Act

of 2023 provides for criminal prosecution in the matters of

use of unfair means in examination.

59. This Court is unable to appreciate the conduct of the

Respondents rendering the said Act of 2023 by the State

Legislative assembly only for archive purposes and not being

put in action to achieve its objective.

60. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of Gullappalli Nageswara Rao v. State of A.P., reported in

AIR 1959 SC 1376, vide para 6 has held that no man shall

be a Judge in his own cause; and justice should not only be

done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done.

61. In the instant case, the conduct of the Respondent

Commission solely relying on the report of the Contracted

Agency for re-examination of 2819 candidates and assuming

no further malpractice has been committed, is manifestly

erroneous.

2026:JHHC:26067

25

62. The involvement of an expert agency of independent

stature to investigate would have only added to the

independence of the decision of the Respondent from any

suspicion or mala-fide. It would have also inspired faith and

confidence of the candidates in the examination process and

also resulted in implementation of the mandate of law under

the Act of 2023. The invocation of the provisions of Act of

2023 cannot be discretionary and selective.

63. Given the role of examination in shaping the future

generation of the Country, and the fact that the successful

candidates would be imparting education to our future

generations who may be adorning important private or public

or constitutional posts, it is in the interest of one and all that

the culprits are put to justice.

64. This Court has put specific question to the Ld.

Counsel for Respondent-JSSC viz., the name of the agency

which was contracted for conducting the examination,

whether the particular computer terminals of an examination

Centre was hacked or the entire Centre / server of the Centre

was hacked or the software of the contracted agency itself

was compromised; when the contracted agency itself has

admitted that there has been unauthorized activity, then can

the report of the same agency be relied upon to conclude

2026:JHHC:26067

26

against 2819 candidates and as to why no action /FIR has

been lodged in view of the mandate of the Act of 2023.

The Respondent’s counsel was unable to give any

reply lest satisfactory reply to the above queries. There was

no answer to the question that how it can be safely concluded

that none amongst the rest of the candidates have not

indulged in compromising the examination process.

65. In the aforesaid background, the Chief Secretary of

the State of Jharkhand is directed to forthwith lodge an FIR

in the matter before Criminal Investigation Department (CID)

against unknown culprits who have soiled the purity of the

selection process.

66. It is expected that the CID will conduct fair and

speedy investigation and bring the offenders before law and

put them to face trial within such time as prescribed under

the provisions of BNSS.

67. The appointments, if any, given by the Respondents,

shall be made subject to the criminal investigation and its

conclusion.

68. The Respondent Commission shall extend all co-

operation in the investigation including but not limited to

preserving the important data of both 1

st round of

examination and the re-examination. It shall ensure that its

2026:JHHC:26067

27

contractor agency and the examination Centres shall fully co-

operate in the investigation.

69. Since the appointment is made subject to criminal

investigation and its conclusion, the petitioners and other

candidates whose roll numbers were reflected in the list of

2819 candidates shall be disclosed their merit in the 1

st

round of examination both Paper I & II, without prejudice to

the outcome of criminal investigation. This is so because in

the event one or other candidate falling in the list of 2819

candidates is found not involved in use of any unfair means,

they may not be left remedy-less to ventilate their grievance if

any.

70. The Respondent JSSC shall within two weeks from

today, issue, communicate and release the marks of all the

candidates whose roll numbers are reflected in the list of

2819 candidates and were asked to appear in re-examination.

This will not have any bearing on the criminal case to be

instituted.

71. The Respondent State or JSSC shall be at liberty to

undertake any departmental action in the matter against

those who are found and/or involved in undermining the

purity of examination for appointment of Secondary School

Teachers for Classes 9 to 12.

2026:JHHC:26067

28

72. The Respondents are at liberty to take such further

action as may be necessary in accordance with law, based on

the investigation report.

73. In view of the order passed, I.A. No. 8860/2026

(W.P.(S) No. 2934 of 2026) by the petitioners does not require

any further indulgence and is accordingly closed.

74. Accordingly, all these writ applications stand

disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.As., if any,

also stands closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J)

29.08.2026

Amardeep/

A.F.R.

Uploaded on

29.08.2026