The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre and the Jharkhand state government regarding a plea demanding a time-bound probe by the CBI into alleged irregularities during the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination. This move raises significant concerns over the integrity of the examination process.
A bench comprised of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana requested responses from the Union of India, the Jharkhand government, and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission among others.
Senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, representing the petitioner, emphasized that the plea advocates for a thorough investigation by the CBI or by a retired judge of the Supreme Court. This encapsulates growing public dissatisfaction with how the exam was administered.
The court heard this plea filed by activist Harisharan Devgan, with the assistance of advocate Satyam Singh Rajput, during its session. The petition aims for the court’s urgent intervention regarding serious concerns affecting the examination’s integrity, transparency, and credibility.
The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, articulates public interest in addressing alleged malpractice linked to the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Competitive Examination scheduled for 2025, legitimized through Advertisement No. 01/2026 on April 19, 2026.
The public outcry surrounding this examination stems from accusations of irregular conduct, prompting activists to seek judicial oversight. Citizens have voiced their worries about the fairness of the selection process, emphasizing the need for a credible assessment.
In an era of competitive examinations where transparency is paramount, these allegations underline an urgent need for scrutiny. Participants of the JPSC exam have expressed frustration, fearing that these controversies could diminish the credibility of their efforts.
With the Supreme Court now involved, stakeholders anticipate a response from the Union and state authorities that will hopefully resolve these pressing concerns swiftly. Activists and candidates await clarification and action to restore faith in the examination process.
This situation serves as a reminder of the critical role the judiciary plays in maintaining accountability and ensuring fair conduct in public service selection mechanisms. As the Supreme Court navigates this complex issue, it underscores the significance of due process and transparency in government examinations.
