Jharkhand HC Imposes Rs 1 Lakh On JPSC Over Rejection Of Candidature

Rejection Of Candidature

The Jharkhand High Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) and dismissed its appeal against a candidate seeking appointment as an assistant professor.

The dispute arose when Manoj Kumar Kachhap, who had applied in 2018 for the assistant professor post, discovered on the day of his interview that the examination fee he paid had not been credited to the Commission’s account.

Kachhap’s application was accepted after initial document scrutiny, and he was cleared to sit for the written examination. However, at the time of the interview round, he was informed that “the fees deposited for the examination was not credited in the account of the commission, and therefore, his candidature could not be considered.” According to his petition, the Commission neither notified him in advance of the payment failure nor refunded the ₹1,000 examination fee that Kachhap had remitted.

Single-Judge Bench Intervention

Following this setback, Kachhap filed a writ petition before a single-judge bench of the High Court, seeking a direction to the JPSC to reconsider his candidature.

The bench, persuaded by the fact that the candidate had fully complied with all eligibility and payment requirements, allowed his petition and ordered that his interview be held without prejudice to the payment irregularity.

Unhappy with this outcome, the JPSC approached a division bench headed by Chief Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao, challenging the single-judge’s order.

Division Bench Verdict & Costs

On Friday, the division bench dismissed the Commission’s appeal, affirming that procedural fairness demanded the JPSC grant Kachhap his scheduled interview despite the payment lapse. Emphasizing that the oversight was on the part of the Commission’s accounting system, the court held that candidates should not suffer for administrative errors beyond their control.

To underline the importance of institutional accountability, the bench imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the JPSC, directing that the amount be paid to Kachhap within 8 weeks. The court observed that such costs serve both as compensation for the petitioner’s time and as a deterrent against future procedural lapses by public bodies.

Separate Adjournment Fee For Madhu Koda

In a separate order issued the same day, the High Court imposed a smaller cost of ₹8,000 on former Chief Minister Madhu Koda. This levy was for seeking adjournments for the fourth time in a pending case. The bench remarked that repeated requests for postponement “undermine judicial efficiency and delay resolution of matters,” and therefore warranted a nominal penalty.

What Lies Ahead

With the division bench’s order, Manoj Kumar Kachhap’s path to an interview—and potentially to appointment—has been cleared, provided the JPSC pays the imposed costs. The judgment underscores the High Court’s commitment to upholding fair procedure and penalizing administrative negligence.

Meanwhile, the cost imposed on Madhu Koda serves as a reminder that even high-profile litigants must respect the court’s time and calendar.