Introduction:

The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed the importance of the principles of natural justice in matters involving public employment, observing prima facie that regular appointments cannot be disturbed or terminated without following due process of law. In Saurav Singh & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P.(S) No. 6450 of 2026, Justice Deepak Roshan stayed the operation of a State Government notification cancelling the recruitment of Food Safety Officers made pursuant to Advertisement No. 18 of 2023.

The controversy arose against the backdrop of allegations concerning irregularities and corruption in recruitments connected with the 11th to 13th Jharkhand Public Service Commission examinations. The State Government, acting on allegations of large-scale wrongdoing and while an investigation by the Crime Investigation Department was underway, issued a notification dated August 18, 2026 cancelling the entire recruitment process relating to the concerned advertisement.

The cancellation had serious consequences for the candidates who had already completed the recruitment process and secured regular appointments. According to the petitioners, they had been duly selected and appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 18 of 2023. However, following the notification cancelling the recruitment process, their services were effectively disengaged.

The petitioners approached the High Court contending that the State had cancelled the entire recruitment and disturbed their regular appointments without issuing individual notices, identifying the candidates allegedly involved in wrongdoing or affording the affected employees an opportunity of hearing.

The High Court was therefore required, at the interim stage, to balance two competing concerns. On one side was the State’s duty to investigate serious allegations of corruption and protect the integrity of public recruitment. On the other was the right of employees, who had already received regular appointments, not to be deprived of their employment through a blanket administrative action without due process.

Justice Roshan noted that the investigation was still in progress and that, at that stage, there was no material before the respondents identifying which candidates were involved in the alleged corruption or other irregularities. The Court consequently found prima facie that the regular appointments could not simply be disturbed without following the principles of natural justice.

The Court stayed the operation, implementation and execution of the August 18 notification until further orders. It also directed the authorities to permit the petitioners and other similarly situated persons affected by the notification to continue their work during the pendency of the writ proceedings.

At the same time, the High Court did not grant unconditional protection. Recognising the seriousness of the ongoing investigation, it required the petitioners to file affidavits or undertakings accepting that the final order passed by the trial court in the connected criminal case would be binding upon them. The State was also expressly left free to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

The order therefore does not determine the final validity of the recruitment process or pronounce upon the allegations of corruption. Rather, it protects the existing appointments at the interim stage while insisting that any action against employees must conform to the principles of natural justice and due process.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 15, 2026.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners, represented by a team of advocates led by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, challenged the State Government’s decision to cancel the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No. 18 of 2023. Their case was that they had successfully participated in the prescribed recruitment process and were thereafter duly appointed to regular posts as Food Safety Officers.

According to the petitioners, their appointments were not provisional or temporary in nature. They had entered public service following the completion of the selection process and had begun discharging their duties. The sudden cancellation of the entire recruitment process through the notification dated August 18, 2026 therefore directly resulted in the loss of their employment.

The petitioners contended that no individual exercise had been undertaken to identify whether any particular candidate had been involved in corruption, malpractice or other illegality. They argued that the State had adopted a blanket approach by cancelling the entire recruitment process and disengaging all selected candidates, including those against whom no specific allegation or material had been placed.

A central submission was based on the principles of natural justice. The petitioners argued that once a candidate has been regularly appointed, the appointment cannot be withdrawn in a manner that effectively terminates the employee without notice, a hearing or any opportunity to explain their position.

The petitioners also submitted that the impugned action was taken without following the procedure required by law. Their counsel alleged that the decision had been taken without observing the safeguards of natural justice and, according to instructions received by counsel, under external pressure rather than on the basis of a completed and legally established determination regarding the individual involvement of the affected appointees.

The petitioners did not dispute that the State was entitled to investigate allegations of corruption or manipulation in a public recruitment process. However, they maintained that an ongoing investigation could not automatically justify the collective cancellation of all appointments, particularly when the authorities had not yet established which candidates had actually benefited from or participated in the alleged wrongdoing.

Their case was therefore not that persons involved in corruption should be protected from legal consequences. Rather, the petitioners sought to distinguish between the State’s power to take action against those found responsible and a blanket decision affecting every appointee irrespective of individual involvement.

The State, represented through Mr. Achyut Keshav, Senior Additional Advocate General, opposed the grant of relief. The State submitted that serious allegations had been made by several citizens concerning irregularities in the recruitment process and that an in-depth investigation had already been commenced through the Crime Investigation Department.

The Senior Additional Advocate General informed the Court that arrests had also been made in connection with the investigation. Although a detailed counter-affidavit had not yet been filed, the State maintained that the material available and the allegations received indicated large-scale or mass bungling in the recruitment process.

According to the State, the decision to cancel the recruitment was not arbitrary but was taken because of the serious allegations affecting the integrity of the selection process. The respondents argued that where corruption is widespread and strikes at the root of a public recruitment exercise, the Government may be justified in cancelling the entire process rather than attempting to preserve selections arising from a tainted examination.

The State’s position thus rested upon the larger public interest in maintaining the purity and credibility of public recruitment. It contended that if the recruitment process itself had been substantially compromised, allowing appointments made through that process to continue could undermine public confidence and perpetuate the consequences of an illegal selection.

On the issue of natural justice, the State argued that the alleged irregularities were not isolated but reflected mass bungling in the entire recruitment process. In such circumstances, it sought to justify the cancellation of the appointments as a consequence of the cancellation of the recruitment itself.

The respondents also relied upon the fact that the investigating agency was actively examining the allegations. The ongoing investigation, arrests and broader allegations were presented as circumstances demonstrating that the Government had acted in response to a serious matter affecting public employment.

The rival submissions therefore raised an important question at the interim stage. While the State has the unquestionable authority to investigate and act against corruption in public recruitment, can regular appointments already made be collectively cancelled before the investigation identifies the persons responsible and without giving the affected employees an opportunity to be heard?

The High Court did not finally decide this question. However, it found sufficient grounds to protect the petitioners pending further consideration of the State’s case and the material emerging from the investigation.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Deepak Roshan granted interim protection to the petitioners and stayed the operation of the notification dated August 18, 2026 insofar as it cancelled the recruitment pursuant to Advertisement No. 18 of 2023.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the prima facie nature of the case and the consequences of the impugned notification. The High Court noted that the petitioners had already received regular appointments. Their disengagement was therefore not merely a decision concerning candidates at the examination or selection stage; it directly affected persons who had already entered service.

The Court observed that a regular appointment cannot ordinarily be disturbed or terminated without adherence to the principles of natural justice. The principle of audi alteram partem, which requires that a person affected by an adverse decision be given an opportunity to be heard, remains one of the foundational safeguards against arbitrary administrative action.

This requirement assumes particular significance where a State action has the effect of depriving a person of an existing appointment. Even when the State possesses legitimate reasons to investigate irregularities, the procedure adopted to take consequential action must remain fair and lawful.

Justice Roshan took note of the State’s submission that the Crime Investigation Department was conducting an in-depth investigation and that arrests had been made. However, the Court also found that the investigation was still underway.

At the time of passing the interim order, there was no material placed before the Court to demonstrate which of the affected candidates were involved in the alleged corruption or other wrongdoing.

This absence of identified individual involvement became a significant factor in the Court’s decision. The High Court was not prepared, at the interim stage, to permit the services of all appointees to be terminated merely because allegations existed concerning the recruitment process when the investigation itself had not yet established which candidates were implicated.

The Court observed that the affected persons had, in effect, been terminated without following due process. The State’s notification may have formally cancelled the recruitment process, but its practical consequence was the disengagement of persons who had already been appointed and were working in regular public employment.

The Court therefore looked beyond the form of the administrative action and considered its substantive effect. A cancellation of recruitment that directly results in the removal of existing employees cannot necessarily escape the requirements of fairness merely because the action is described as cancellation of the recruitment process rather than termination of service.

The High Court also emphasised that the interests of justice were paramount while considering interim protection. On the facts then available, the Court found that the balance of justice required the notification to be stayed until the State placed fuller material before the Court regarding the investigation and any subsequent developments.

Accordingly, the Court stayed the operation, implementation and execution of Notification No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5404 of 2026 dated August 18, 2026 in relation to Advertisement No. 18 of 2023 until further orders.

The respondents were directed to file a counter-affidavit setting out the details of the investigation and informing the Court about further developments. This direction reflects the Court’s recognition that the State’s allegations of corruption required serious examination and could not be ignored.

The interim protection was therefore not based on a finding that the allegations of corruption were false. Nor did the Court hold that the recruitment process was unquestionably valid. The Court confined itself to the narrower question of whether existing regular appointments could be immediately disturbed in the manner adopted by the State while the investigation remained incomplete and the persons allegedly involved had not been identified.

Justice Roshan further directed the Senior Additional Advocate General to inform the concerned department that the petitioners and other similarly situated persons affected by the notification should be permitted to continue working until the writ petition was finally disposed of.

This direction extended the practical benefit of the stay beyond only the named petitioners and recognised that other similarly placed appointees were affected by the same notification and stood on substantially identical footing.

At the same time, the Court carefully ensured that its interim order would not become a shield for persons who might ultimately be found to have been involved in wrongdoing. It directed all the petitioners to file an affidavit or undertaking stating that the final order passed by the trial court in the connected criminal case would be binding upon them.

The High Court also expressly preserved the Government’s freedom to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

This condition is important because it demonstrates the limited nature of the protection granted. The Court was not insulating the petitioners from the consequences of a future criminal adjudication or preventing the State from acting against candidates who may subsequently be found responsible for corruption or malpractice.

Instead, the Court insisted that any such action must be taken through the proper legal process.

The order therefore seeks to maintain a careful balance between two equally important public interests. The first is the integrity of public recruitment. Allegations of corruption in competitive examinations are serious because they affect not only individual candidates but also the constitutional principle of equal opportunity in public employment.

The second is the protection of individuals from arbitrary deprivation of existing rights. Persons who have received regular appointments cannot ordinarily be treated as guilty merely because an investigation into the recruitment process has commenced.

The High Court’s prima facie approach recognises that an investigation and a finding are not the same thing. The existence of allegations may justify an inquiry, but before adverse action is taken against specific persons, the authorities ordinarily require a legally sustainable basis and must follow the applicable procedure.

The Court’s observation also carries wider significance for public service jurisprudence. Administrative authorities cannot avoid the safeguards associated with termination by adopting an alternative form of action that produces the same consequence.

If the practical result of cancelling an entire recruitment is that regularly appointed employees lose their employment, courts may examine whether the decision has been taken consistently with the principles of fairness, natural justice and due process.

At the same time, the final outcome of the case remains open. The State is required to place the details of the investigation before the Court, and the respondents will have an opportunity to justify the cancellation. The Court may subsequently consider the nature and extent of the alleged irregularities, the material collected by the investigating agency and whether the alleged corruption was so pervasive that the recruitment process could not be segregated or salvaged.

The interim order therefore should not be understood as a final declaration that the recruitment process was valid or that the petitioners have an absolute right to continue in service regardless of the outcome of the investigation.

Rather, the High Court has held that until a proper factual and legal foundation is established, and unless the affected persons are dealt with in accordance with law, their regular appointments cannot simply be cancelled through a blanket administrative notification.

The matter is now listed for September 15, 2026. The State’s counter-affidavit and the progress of the investigation are likely to play an important role in the next stage of the proceedings.

For now, the High Court’s interim intervention sends a clear message: the State may investigate corruption rigorously and take strict action against those found responsible, but allegations of mass irregularity cannot automatically displace the requirements of fairness and due process when regular appointments and existing livelihoods are at stake.