Back
Supreme Court Dismisses 35 Candidates' Plea Against JPSC Revised Merit List as Exam Cancelled
The has disposed of a writ petition filed by 35 candidates who were excluded from the revised merit list of the Jharkhand Judicial Service Preliminary Examination, 2023, after the entire examination was cancelled. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, declared the plea , noting that the cancellation of the exam had rendered the challenge to the merit list . The development marks the latest chapter in a protracted dispute over alleged irregularities in the recruitment process for 138 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Jharkhand.
Background: The Exam and the Merit List Controversy
The preliminary examination, conducted on , under Advertisement No. 22/2023, initially saw the (JPSC) publish a model answer key that was revised three times. The third revised answer key was released on , followed by a result-cum-merit list on , declaring approximately 1,797 candidates successful. Among them were the 35 petitioners, who had submitted their documents for the next stage of selection.
However, the dispute over three specific questions in the examination soon erupted. The , entertaining petitions challenging the answer key, held that the answers to those three questions were erroneous. The High Court directed the JPSC to recompute marks and prepare a fresh merit list. The JPSC appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which on , ruled that the High Court could not assume the role of a or subject expert. Instead, the Supreme Court directed the High Court’s administrative committee to re-examine the disputed questions and send its opinion to the JPSC for necessary follow-up action.
The Revised Merit List and Exclusion of Candidates
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions, the JPSC issued a Final Answer Key on . Under this key, two of the disputed questions were deleted, and the answer to the third was altered. The commission then recomputed the marks of all candidates and published a revised merit list on . The 35 petitioners—who had been declared successful in the earlier list of —found themselves excluded from the revised list.
In their petition before the Supreme Court (W.P.(C) No. 777/2026, ), the candidates argued that the corrective exercise carried out after the revision of the answer key could not result in their exclusion after they had already been declared successful. They contended that the JPSC had failed to preserve the status of candidates who had already qualified and had been called upon to submit documents for the next stage. Notably, they clarified that they were not seeking the exclusion of candidates who became eligible after the correction of the answer key, but only the protection of those who had already qualified based on the earlier merit list.
Cancellation of the Exam: A Broader Crackdown
While the petition was pending, the , amid student protests against alleged irregularities in a batch of recruitment examinations, decided to cancel several exams, including the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Preliminary Examination under Advertisement No. 22/2023. This decision effectively wiped out the entire selection process for the 138 posts, making the challenge to the revised merit list irrelevant. Counsel for the petitioners informed the Supreme Court of the cancellation, prompting the bench to dispose of the plea as .
Separately, a plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking a investigation into alleged malpractices in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination—another exam cancelled by the JPSC recently—indicating a wider concern over the integrity of recruitment processes in the state.
Legal Analysis: and the Limits of
The disposal of the petition on grounds of infructuousness underscores a fundamental principle of constitutional law: courts will not adjudicate matters that have become academic or where no effective relief can be granted. Once the entire examination was cancelled, there was no live controversy regarding the merit list. The petitioners’ challenge was effectively overtaken by events.
From a procedural perspective, the case also highlights the tension between the need for and the rights of candidates. The earlier Supreme Court order cautioning the High Court against acting as a reinforced the limited scope of in matters of academic evaluation. However, the subsequent cancellation of the exam—driven by broader policy and political considerations—circumvented the very issue the petition sought to resolve.
Impact on Candidates and the Recruitment Process
For the 35 candidates and the around 149 others who had qualified in the earlier merit list but were potentially affected by the revision, the cancellation is a severe setback. Many had invested months preparing for the next stage of selection. The decision also affects the approximately 1,797 candidates initially declared successful, all of whom now lose any benefit from the process.
The cancellation is part of a larger trend in Jharkhand and other states where governments have nullified recruitment examinations amid allegations of paper leaks and irregularities. While such measures aim to restore trust in the system, they also impose significant costs on candidates who were not involved in any malpractice. The judiciary, as seen in this case, is often left with no option but to accept the executive’s decision to cancel and start afresh.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s disposal of the petition as brings a formal end to the legal challenge, but the underlying issues of transparency, fairness, and efficiency in recruitment processes remain unresolved. For legal professionals, the case serves as a reminder of the interplay between and , and the practical realities that can render even well-founded grievances . As investigations into alleged irregularities continue, the focus now shifts to whether any new examination will be conducted and what safeguards will be implemented to prevent future controversies.
