The Jharkhand High Court had stayed the state government’s notification to cancel several recruitment examinations, including the JSSC-CGL and various JPSC tests, providing temporary relief to successful candidates who had challenged the blanket cancellation.

A batch of petitions was filed by aggrieved candidates who had already cleared the selection process and received appointments.

The Jharkhand government announced the cancellation of multiple recruitment exams following CID and SIT findings regarding alleged irregularities.

The cancellation orders targeted exams like JSSC-CGL and tests managed through specific processing agencies dating back to 2014.
The Jharkhand High Court intervened and placed a legal stay on the execution of the government's cancellation notifications.

The cancelled examinations include recruitment tests for drug inspectors, assistant professors, deputy collectors, dental doctors, assistant engineers, civil judges, additional public prosecutors and forest range officers, among others. 

The list also includes examinations for lecturers in government polytechnics, senior scientific officers, assistant conservators of forests and various administrative and technical posts.

Four petitions had challenged the state order. The petitioners include successful candidates from the 11th-13th JPSC Combined Civil Services Examination, JSSC-CGL and the Food Safety Officer examination. The petitions have been filed by successful candidates, including Avadhesh Kumar, Deepmala, Sonam Kumari and Saurabh Singh, among others.

The candidates' primary argument was that the government unilaterally cancelled the examinations and subsequent appointments without giving them an opportunity to present their case.

A large number of these candidates had already joined government service following their selection, and the government's decision has directly jeopardised their employment.

The petitioners also invoked the principles of natural justice in their defence. They argued that while action should be taken against any candidate found to have played a dubious role during the investigation, it would be unjust to remove all successful candidates from their jobs without an individual inquiry or hearing.

They maintain that they appeared for the examinations in accordance with the prescribed procedure, secured positions on the merit lists and were subsequently appointed to government posts.