Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court on Monday ordered the constitution of a one-member fact-finding commission headed by retired Justice Dr S.N. Pathak to probe alleged irregularities in the merit list for the appointment of high school teachers in the state.
A single-judge bench of Justice Deepak Roshan, while hearing petitions challenging the recruitment process, issued a 75-page order laying down detailed guidelines for the inquiry. The commission has been directed to complete the investigation and submit its report within three months.
Outlining the scope of the probe, the court said an investigation was necessary into, among other things: how many candidates were appointed by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC), how many sanctioned posts were later surrendered, and the reasons for any such surrender.
The court said these questions warranted an independent examination and, accordingly, set up the fact-finding mechanism.
To improve transparency and reduce litigation, the court also directed the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) and the JSSC to establish "fact-finding counters" where candidates can access recruitment-related information without approaching the court.
During the hearing, petitioners alleged serious errors in the 2016 high school teacher recruitment merit list, claiming that candidates with lower marks were selected while higher-scoring candidates were left out.
They also pointed to contradictions in the number of posts disclosed in the state government’s affidavits.
Senior advocate Ajit Kumar submitted that, pursuant to a Supreme Court order in the matter of Soni Kumari & Others, 425 candidates were to be appointed, but the government maintained that only 377 candidates ultimately joined.
Senior advocates Ajit Kumar, Indrajit Sinha, and Aparajita Bhardwaj appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate General Rajiv Ranjan, along with counsels Sanjay Piperwal and Prince Kumar Singh, represented the JSSC.
The commission’s findings are expected to inform the next course of action on the disputed selections and the status of sanctioned posts, with the court emphasising streamlined access to information for affected candidates during the intervening period.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
