1. Challenge to notifications cancelling entire advertisement/selection process and terminating appointments. (Para 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J
Subhash Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 6512 of 2026|W.P (S) No. 6450 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 6451 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 6452 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 6513 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 6514 of 2026|W.P (S) No. 6515 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 6521 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 7106 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 7133 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 7134 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 7135 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 7136 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 7137 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 7030 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 7282 of 2026|W.P.(S) No. 7483 of 2026
Important Points
The Court appointed a retired Judge as a Monitor/Observer to oversee an SIT investigation to ensure fairness and prevent harassment of candidates, while clarifying that such monitoring is independent and does not interfere with the agency's legal authority to investigate.
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Law / Investigation Monitoring
Headnote
(A) Investigation Process - Monitoring of SIT - Appointment of Observer - To ensure a free and fair investigation and prevent the harassment of innocent candidates during an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), the Court may appoint a retired Judge as a Monitor/Observer to oversee the process and address complaints of highhandedness, provided such monitoring does not interfere with the legal powers of the investigating agency. (Para 13, 14, 16)
(B) Procedural Fairness - Submission of Rejoinder - Parties are entitled to file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit to rebut specific allegations made by the state, ensuring the principles of natural justice are followed before the final adjudication of the legality of impugned notifications. (Para 4, 11)
Issues: Whether a Monitor/Observer should be appointed to oversee the SIT investigation to prevent harassment of candidates while the legality of the cancellation of the selection process is being decided.
(B) Procedural Fairness - Submission of Rejoinder - Parties are entitled to file a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit to rebut specific allegations made by the state, ensuring the principles of natural justice are followed before the final adjudication of the legality of impugned notifications. (Para 4, 11)
Issues: Whether a Monitor/Observer should be appointed to oversee the SIT investigation to prevent harassment of candidates while the legality of the cancellation of the selection process is being decided.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Rajiv Ranjan, Indrajit Sinha, Amritansh Vats, Saurabh Shekhar, Amrita Sinha, Arpan Mishra, Ashish Choudhary, Kumar Abhishek, Rahul Ranjan, Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Deepankar, Shray Mishra, Sonal Tiwary, Kumar Chayan, Nikhil Anand, Harishika Verma, Ritesh Ranjan, Dhruva Kumar, Mohit Mukul, Rajeev Ranjan Ran, P.A.S.Pati, Vaishnavi Kaushik
For the Respondents: Meenakshi Arora, Rohitashya Roy, Jai Prakash, Achyut Keshav, Vibhour Mayank, Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Ruchi Mukti
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Rajiv Ranjan, Indrajit Sinha, Amritansh Vats, Saurabh Shekhar, Amrita Sinha, Arpan Mishra, Ashish Choudhary, Kumar Abhishek, Rahul Ranjan, Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Deepankar, Shray Mishra, Sonal Tiwary, Kumar Chayan, Nikhil Anand, Harishika Verma, Ritesh Ranjan, Dhruva Kumar, Mohit Mukul, Rajeev Ranjan Ran, P.A.S.Pati, Vaishnavi Kaushik
For the Respondents: Meenakshi Arora, Rohitashya Roy, Jai Prakash, Achyut Keshav, Vibhour Mayank, Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar, Ruchi Mukti
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners challenge legality of impugned notifications; state defends investigation. Intervener seeks to assist court. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Summoning by investigating agency not harassment per se; fairness requires independent oversight to prevent citizen harassment. (Para 13 , 16 )
4. Court may appoint independent monitor to observe investigation to ensure fairness and prevent harassment without impeding investigation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
5. Retired judge appointed as monitor for harassment complaints; interim order continued; rejoinder filed within 10 days. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Can a court appoint an independent monitor to oversee an ongoing criminal investigation?
Yes, a court may appoint an independent monitor to observe an investigation to ensure fairness and prevent harassment, provided it does not impede the investigation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
7. Does the mere act of summoning a person for investigation constitute harassment?
No, summoning someone for investigation by itself cannot be termed as harassment. (Para 13 )
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Since the issue involved in all these Writ applications is common; accordingly, with consent of the parties, all the matters were heard together.
3. Pursuant to the previous order, the respondent-State has filed its counter affidavit in two matters only today in the Court, which are taken on record. Learned Advocate General submits that these two Counter Affidavits shall be considered to be filed as response to all the writ petitions.
4. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Ld. Sr. Counsel and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Ld. Sr. Adv. representing the petitioners in one set of write petitions submit that in view of the fact that there are some allegations made in the counter-affidavits against the petitioners hence they would like to rebut the averments made in the counter affidavit.
5. Mr. Patwalia, further submits that ultimately, the Court has to decide the lis involved in these write petitions i.e., the legality of the impugned notification(s); whereby the entire advertisement / selection process was cancelled and in effect, all the candidates who were appointed, got automatically terminated, therefore, he requested for a shorter date for filing Rejoinder to the counter-affidavit.
6. Mr. T. Singhdev, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the proposed intervener(s) submits that he wants to assist this Court on legal and other issues and as such their intervention application may be allowed.
7. He is very much welcome to assist this Court and is also at liberty to file compilation of judgments for the obvious reason that the Court has to ultimately decide the lis with the help of learned counsel for the rival parties. However, his prayer to allow the intervention application and permitting them to file Counter Affidavit(s) is not acceded by this Court at this stage and will be considered at the time of final hearing.
8. Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of one set of writ petitioners, apart from adopting the suggestion/argument of Shri Patwalia, further contended that the Court should not deviate from the main issue of deciding the lis involved in this case i.e. the action of the State vide impugned notifications.
9. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of another set of write petitioners, upon instruction, submits that the SIT, which is investigating the matter is perhaps noticing/summoning few innocent candidates also and there are instances of gross harassments and exercising undue pressure. He fairly submits that he doesn't have to say anything about the investigation, but he requests the Court to do something so that the innocent people should not be harassed.
10. In reply to the above, Ld. Advocate General and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ld. Sr. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent-State submit that in course of investigation, if at all, the concerned investigating officer or associate officer thinks it proper, they can summon / notice any person in accordance with law and summoning /issuing notice to any person should not be prevented. However, she fairly submits that if any one has any such apprehension of highhandedness; then the said aspect can be monitored by any independent body like any retired Judge of this High Court.
11. Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties, the respective Petitioners may file rejoinder to the counter affidavit, if so advised, within a period of ten days after serving copy to the Respondent-State.
12. Before parting, it is necessary to refer the argument of Mr. Sinha, inasmuch as, there might be apprehension in many candidates, who are genuine, that they may be harassed; at the same time, it is also important for the investigating agency in order to effectively investigate to summon / issue notice any person on the basis of materials collected during the investigation.
13. It is no doubt that summoning anyone by itself cannot be termed as harassment, but at the same time, having regard to the principles of fairness
