The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that institutional integrity in public recruitment cannot be entrusted to the very bodies accused of systemic irregularities. In a decisive move, the Court mandated an independent judicial fact-finding commission to investigate widespread anomalies in the JSSC recruitment process, setting a precedent for procedural fairness in state employment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Faruk Abdulla, challenged the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission’s (JSSC) revised merit list for government posts, alleging that candidates with lower marks were appointed while meritorious candidates - like himself - were excluded. The dispute arose from the non-implementation of the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment, which had directed fair implementation of merit-based appointments. The petitioner claimed that over 2,000 vacancies remained unfilled despite eligible candidates being available, and that appointments were made in violation of reservation norms and merit principles.
Procedural History
- 2022: Supreme Court issued directions for fair implementation of merit lists in JSSC recruitment.
- 2023: Coordinate Bench of Jharkhand High Court, in Mina Kumari v. State of Jharkhand, ordered a one-man fact-finding commission to investigate irregularities.
- 2025: The same Bench reiterated its directions in analogous cases, including Avishek Kumar Gupta v. State of Jharkhand.
- 2026: This petition, filed by Faruk Abdulla, sought identical relief and was argued as being squarely covered by the earlier precedent.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) cancellation of wrongful appointments; (ii) filling of 2,034 unfilled vacancies based on merit; (iii) appointment of an independent commission to investigate irregularities; and (iv) action against erring officials.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether administrative bodies accused of systemic recruitment irregularities can be entrusted to self-correct their own violations, or whether an independent judicial fact-finding mechanism is constitutionally mandated under Articles 14 and 16 to ensure fairness and transparency.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Mina Kumari v. State of Jharkhand and the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment to argue that the JSSC had failed to comply with constitutional mandates. He contended that allowing the JSSC to investigate its own conduct violated the principle of nemo iudex in causa sua and that only an independent commission could restore public trust. He cited State of U.P. v. Raj Narain to emphasize that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in public employment.
For the Respondent
The State and JSSC argued that the matter was sub judice in a pending Letters Patent Appeal against Mina Kumari, and that the petitioner should await its outcome. They also suggested that individual representations to the JSSC Secretary could resolve grievances, asserting that the existing administrative machinery was sufficient. They did not dispute the existence of vacancies but claimed procedural delays were administrative, not malicious.
The Court's Analysis
The Court declined to accept the State’s proposal for internal redressal, holding that institutional self-regulation in the face of credible allegations of bias and irregularity is constitutionally untenable. The Court emphasized that Articles 14 and 16 require not just substantive fairness but also the appearance of impartiality.
"This Court is declining to accept such proposal of sending the Petitioners to JSSC itself for the purpose of enquiry into the issues... for which purpose a One-Man Fact-Finding Commission is being appointed."
The Court reaffirmed the Mina Kumari precedent, noting that the JSSC’s failure to implement the Supreme Court’s 2022 order created a vacuum that only an independent, judicially supervised body could fill. It held that the Commission must have the power to summon officials and inspect original records, underscoring that documentary evidence must prevail over oral assurances.
The Court further observed that the persistent flood of writ petitions after every JSSC/JPSC examination indicated a structural failure in grievance redressal. It therefore directed the State to establish a permanent internal Fact-Finding Body within JSSC/JPSC to review candidate grievances with reasoned orders, thereby reducing litigation burden on the Court.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s claim was upheld. The Court held that an independent judicial fact-finding commission must investigate recruitment irregularities, that 2,034 unfilled vacancies must be filled based on merit, and that erroneous appointments cannot be disturbed without due process. The petition was disposed of by applying the Mina Kumari order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Oversight Trumps Administrative Self-Regulation
- Practitioners must now challenge any administrative body’s attempt to investigate its own recruitment irregularities as a violation of natural justice.
- Courts will not permit self-regulation where systemic bias is alleged; an independent commission is mandatory.
- This principle applies beyond JSSC to all state recruitment bodies, including JPSC, RRBs, and state public service commissions.
Vacancies Must Be Filled on Merit, Not Administrative Convenience
- Unfilled vacancies due to non-availability of reserved category candidates cannot justify appointing less meritorious general category candidates.
- The Court’s directive to fill 2,034 vacancies within six months establishes a time-bound obligation on state agencies.
- Practitioners should now file representations demanding merit-based filling of such vacancies, citing this judgment as binding precedent.
Permanent Grievance Mechanism Now Required
- State governments must now establish a permanent, quasi-judicial Fact-Finding Body within JSSC/JPSC to issue reasoned orders on candidate grievances.
- This body must have access to original records and must operate transparently.
- Failure to constitute such a body may invite contempt proceedings or further writ petitions under Article 226.
