Across India, examination controversies are no longer isolated incidents. They are reshaping the relationship between millions of aspirants and the institutions meant to reward merit. 

In Jharkhand, that erosion of trust has been unfolding for nearly a quarter of a century, or rather ever since the JPSC was established on November 15, 2000, under Article 315 of the Constitution of India, coinciding with the formation of the state of Jharkhand.

In this article, divided in III parts, we look at the evidence weighing the JPSC's performance and its impact, generating scam after scam without any break. The scam continued to pile up in files even today, when the recruitment process is going on inside the high walls of the JPSC. 

*Editor, Manoj Prasad 

Part I | THE SLOW EROSION OF TRUST

An Examination Beyond the Examination

There was a time when the greatest challenge of a competitive examination was the examination itself.

Years of preparation. Families pooling together savings. Students putting careers, income, and personal milestones on hold for a single opportunity. Success was never guaranteed, but there was comfort in one enduring belief—that merit, however difficult the journey, would eventually find its reward.

Across India today, that belief is being tested as never before. Whether through allegations of paper leaks, disputed answer keys, opaque evaluation processes, recruitment irregularities or prolonged legal battles, public examinations have increasingly found themselves under scrutiny. 

Each controversy is different in its facts, each investigation follows its own legal course, and every institution has its own circumstances. Yet together they raise a common question that extends far beyond any one examination or one state:

Can the institutions entrusted with deciding the futures of millions still command unquestioned public confidence?

Jharkhand's Public Service Commission (JPSC) offers one of the most compelling windows into that question. Not because its controversies began recently. But because they have persisted, in one form or another, for nearly twenty-four years.

A State Born of Aspiration

When Jharkhand came into existence on 15 November 2000, it represented far more than the creation of India's newest state. It embodied decades of political struggle, regional identity and public aspiration. More importantly, it carried the promise that the state's own resources, institutions and governance would create greater opportunities for its people.

For its youth, those aspirations were deeply personal. The formation of the state brought with it expectations of a more transparent administrative system, stronger public accountability and equal opportunities in government employment. It was a vision rooted in fairness—a belief that the institutions of the new state would reflect the hopes with which it had been created. 

Among the most significant institutions established to fulfil that promise was the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC).

Constituted in 2002, the Commission was entrusted with one of the state's most consequential responsibilities: identifying and recruiting future administrators through a transparent, merit-based examination process. 

The first Combined Civil Services Examination followed in 2003, marking what many believed would be the beginning of a new chapter in Jharkhand's administrative history. Instead, over the next two decades, that chapter would repeatedly be interrupted by controversy.

Twenty-Four Years. Fourteen Examination Cycles. One Recurring Challenge.

Since its inception, JPSC has initiated the process for 14 Combined Civil Services Examination cycles.

To address recruitment backlogs and reduce administrative delays, several examinations covering different recruitment years were clubbed together and conducted jointly. Consequently, the number of examination notifications does not always correspond with the number of recruitment cycles.

Administratively, the approach sought efficiency. For aspirants, however, it also meant that delays, litigation or controversies surrounding one examination often had implications that extended well beyond a single recruitment cycle. As the years passed, the Commission continued to recruit officers for the state's civil services. 

Yet almost every major phase of its examination history became accompanied by disputes that gradually transformed isolated concerns into a recurring institutional challenge. The nature of those disputes evolved over time, but the underlying question remained remarkably consistent.

Could candidates place unquestioned faith in the process that determined their future?

The First Six Examinations: Early Successes, Early Questions

The first Combined Civil Services Examination, conducted in 2003, represented the Commission's inaugural recruitment exercise. The optimism surrounding it was considerable. Jharkhand was still a young state, and its institutions were finding their footing.

The second examination, conducted during 2005–06, marked the first major rupture in that optimism. Allegations emerged concerning the selection process, evaluation of answer scripts, and procedural irregularities. The controversy ultimately prompted formal investigations, resulting in action against several officials and other individuals connected with the recruitment process.

By the third examination in 2008, questions regarding the selection process surfaced once again. The fourth examination (2012–13) and the fifth examination (2015)witnessed disputes centred on recruitment rules, reservation policies and cut-off criteria. The sixth Combined Civil Services Examination, conducted in 2016, would become one of the longest-running recruitment exercises in the Commission's history. 

From the publication of its notification to the declaration of its final results, the examination remained entangled in multiple legal proceedings, illustrating how recruitment itself had increasingly become intertwined with judicial intervention. By this stage, controversies surrounding JPSC examinations were no longer isolated episodes. They had become recurring interruptions in an institution originally created to inspire confidence.

Backlog, Delay and the Cost of Waiting

Recruitment examinations measure performance. But for aspirants, they also measure time. Every delayed notification extends preparation. Every postponed examination delays employment. Every legal challenge postpones certainty. 

For thousands of candidates, competitive examinations are not isolated events but multi-year commitments shaped by financial constraints, family expectations and age eligibility. As recruitment cycles became increasingly prolonged, uncertainty itself emerged as one of the defining features of the examination process.

While the Commission sought to address backlogs by combining examination cycles, the cumulative effect was that successive batches of aspirants often found themselves waiting longer for outcomes that would determine the course of their professional lives. In competitive examinations, delay is rarely administrative alone.

It is deeply personal.

When Questions Became Patterns

Institutions are not judged solely by the controversies they encounter. They are judged by whether those controversies remain exceptions—or gradually begin to resemble a pattern. By the end of JPSC's first six examination cycles, controversies had touched multiple aspects of the recruitment process—from evaluation and procedural rules to reservation policies and prolonged litigation. Each controversy differed in its specifics. Each followed its own course. 

Yet together they marked the beginning of a larger institutional challenge that would become even more pronounced in the years to come.

The examinations continued. So did the questions.

Advertisement

PART II | WHEN CONTROVERSIES STOP BEING EXCEPTIONS

The Seventh to Tenth Examinations: When Process Itself Came Under Scrutiny

By the time the Commission announced the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th Combined Civil Services Examinations, the challenge before it was no longer limited to conducting another recruitment exercise. It was also attempting to clear years of accumulated backlog. 

The four examination cycles were therefore conducted together—an administrative decision intended to accelerate recruitment and restore normalcy. Instead, the examinations became another defining moment in JPSC's history.

Following the preliminary examination in 2021, candidates began questioning the integrity of the selection process. Among the principal allegations was that multiple candidates with consecutive roll numbers from the same examination centre had qualified together. Aspirants argued that the pattern warranted closer scrutiny and demanded greater transparency from the Commission.

Soon afterwards, allegations concerning the handling of OMR answer sheets further intensified public concern. What began as questions raised by candidates quickly evolved into organised protests. 

The matter eventually reached the judiciary, where the functioning of the Commission itself came under examination. The controversy reflected an important shift. The debate was no longer confined to individual candidates or isolated recruitment decisions. Increasingly, it centred on the credibility of the examination process itself.

The Eleventh to Thirteenth Examinations: Recruitment Continued, Questions Remained

The Commission subsequently conducted the 11th, 12th and 13th Combined Civil Services Examinations together. Upon completion of the recruitment process, appointments to 342 posts were made. For the administration, this represented the successful conclusion of another recruitment cycle. 

For several candidates, however, concerns regarding the examination process remained unresolved. Some aspirants challenged the procedure in court, once again bringing judicial scrutiny into the recruitment process. The continuation of legal disputes demonstrated a recurring pattern that had begun years earlier.

Recruitment was proceeding. So were the controversies.

The Fourteenth Examination: A Defining Moment

If previous controversies had accumulated gradually over two decades, the 14th Combined Civil Services Examination brought them into sharp national focus. Conducted under Advertisement No. 01/2026, the preliminary examination for 103 vacancies took place on 19 April 2026. 

When the preliminary results were declared in July 2026, a fresh wave of objections followed. Candidates alleged that the Commission had not published the cut-off marks and had failed to maintain adequate transparency regarding several aspects of the examination process, including issues relating to OMR sheets. 

As criticism intensified, an official investigation was initiated. The consequences extended beyond a single examination.

The Main Examination, scheduled for 25, 26 and 27 July 2026, was postponed. Alongside it, nine examinations included in the Commission's recruitment calendar were also deferred. The postponement affected nearly 500 vacancies, extending uncertainty across multiple recruitment processes and leaving thousands of aspirants waiting once again.

When Protest Became a Movement

The response from candidates was immediate. Various student organisations and JPSC aspirants launched the 'Clean JPSC'campaign, transforming scattered dissatisfaction into an organised movement demanding institutional accountability.

Their central demand was clear:

An independent CBI investigation into the alleged irregularities in JPSC examinations and strict action against those found responsible. The movement began with a three-day sit-in demonstration outside Bapu Vatika at Ranchi's Morabadi Ground. As participation grew, the agitation shifted to Jaipal Singh Munda Stadium, where aspirants, student organisations and independent student groups began an indefinite protest. 

The movement soon expanded beyond designated protest venues. Students demonstrated at Albert Ekka Chowk, marched towards Lok Bhavan, and submitted their demands before the District Commissioner's office. Student leaders announced that the agitation would intensify further during the Monsoon Session of the Assembly. According to them, the movement was no longer confined to one examination. It represented a larger struggle over the credibility of public recruitment itself.

One Movement. Two Generations of Aspirants.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the ongoing protests is the diversity of those participating. The movement is no longer being led only by candidates affected by the fourteenth examination. It also includes individuals whose association with JPSC stretches back more than two decades. 

Manoj Yadav, who appeared in the very first JPSC examination, says he was among the earliest voices to question the Commission's functioning. According to him, despite performing well and securing good marks, he did not receive justice. Since then, he says, he has remained associated with efforts demanding greater transparency and reform in JPSC's examination system. 

Yadav argues that although previous investigations resulted in action against several individuals—including imprisonment in earlier cases—the larger structural issues within the recruitment system were never fully addressed.

A similar sentiment is expressed by Sandeep Gupta, who appeared in the 13th JPSC examination. He says concerns regarding the recruitment process existed even during his examination cycle and that those experiences motivated him to join the broader movement for examination reforms. Together, their participation illustrates an unusual continuity. Different examination batches.

Different years. The same unresolved questions.

PART III | WHEN THE INVESTIGATION REACHED THE INSTITUTION

The Investigation Deepens

As public protests intensified, the investigation into the alleged recruitment irregularities also expanded. One of the most significant developments came with the arrest of Abhay Tiwari, also known as Manoj Kumar Tiwari, who was serving as the Block Supply Officer (BSO) in Godda district.

According to investigators, he played an important role in the alleged recruitment racket. The investigation alleges that while serving in government under the name Abhay, he used another identity in matters relating to a private agency.

Investigators also found that Tiwari was associated with TDPL (Tata Data Processing Private Limited) as a manager—the agency responsible for conducting examinations for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC). 

His background added another layer to the investigation. He had previously topped the State Block Supply Examination, cleared multiple competitive examinations and had also qualified in the JPSC Preliminary Examination conducted this year. Meanwhile, the agency itself had already come under scrutiny and had subsequently been blacklisted by the Jharkhand Government.

Attention Turns Towards the Former Chairman

The investigation gradually moved beyond operational staff and recruitment agencies. It also reached the Commission's highest levels. Former JPSC Chairman and former Chief Secretary of Jharkhand L. Khiyangte came under sustained questioning by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). He was interrogated for three consecutive days. Earlier questioning reportedly lasted nearly nine hours on 28 July and approximately seven hours on 29 July, indicating the scale and seriousness of the investigation. 

The CID also seized his passport to prevent overseas travel during the investigation. Following searches conducted at both the JPSC office and his official residence on Kanke Road, Khiyang tendered his resignation on 22 July 2026, stating that he wished to facilitate a fair investigation.

The investigation remains ongoing. No judicial findings have yet been reached.

What Exactly Is the CID Examining?

The investigation is attempting to establish how and why TDPL, despite being a blacklisted outsourcing agency, was entrusted with conducting examinations of constitutional significance.