Jharkhand HC Stays Cancellation of Food Safety Officer Recruitment, Cites Absence of Natural Justice

Justice Deepak Roshan stayed a blanket cancellation of all appointments under Advertisement No. 18 of 2023, finding no individuated material against any specific candidate before the State acted.

The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, on 20 August 2026, stayed Notification No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5404 of 2026 dated 18 August 2026, by which the State had cancelled the entire recruitment process under Advertisement No. 18 of 2023 for the post of Food Safety Officer. Justice Deepak Roshan, sitting singly, held that duly appointed candidates cannot have their services disengaged without any process of natural justice, particularly when the investigating agency — the Crime Investigation Department (CID) — had yet to produce material identifying which candidates were actually implicated in alleged irregularities. The stay operates until further orders, and the matter is listed on 15 September 2026.

The Recruitment Cancellation and the Petitioners’ Grievance

The petitioners, Saurav Singh and others, had been appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 18 of 2023 for the recruitment of Food Safety Officers. Without notice or hearing, the State issued Notification No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5404 of 2026 on 18 August 2026, cancelling all recruitments made under that advertisement. As a direct consequence, the petitioners’ services were disengaged.

Through counsel Mr. Indrajit Sinha and a team of advocates, the petitioners filed W.P.(S) No. 6450 of 2026 seeking quashing and setting aside of the notification. Their primary submission was that no process of natural justice had been followed before the cancellation, and that the action appeared to have been taken under extraneous pressure rather than on any finding specific to any individual appointee.

The State’s Position: Mass Bungling and an Ongoing CID Inquiry

Mr. Achyut Keshav, Senior Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State but acknowledged that no counter-affidavit had yet been filed. He informed the Court that allegations of irregularities had been received from various citizens, a CID inquiry was already underway, and some arrests had been made.

On the natural justice question, the State's position was that the recruitment process was vitiated by “mass bungling” and that the cancellation was therefore justified in its entirety. The State did not, however, place before the Court any material identifying which among the appointed candidates were involved in the alleged corruption.

Court’s Reasoning: No Candidate-Specific Material, No Due Process

Justice Roshan observed that a regular appointment cannot be disturbed or terminated without following the principles of natural justice. That proposition, in itself, was not contested. What the Court found significant was the absence of any material before the respondents to show which candidates were involved in corruption or other misconduct — a gap that the ongoing CID investigation had not yet filled.

The Court reasoned that because the investigating agency was still in the field, the State had effectively acted ahead of its own inquiry. Cancelling all appointments in bulk, before any culpability was attributed to specific persons, amounted in effect to termination without due process. On that basis, the Court was prima facie satisfied that interim protection was warranted.

The Court also made clear that the interest of justice was paramount in the circumstances, and that this interest demanded a stay of the notification rather than allowing the disengagement of services to continue during the pendency of the writ.

Conditions Attached to the Stay

The stay was not unconditional. The Court directed that all petitioners file an affidavit or undertaking stating that the final order passed by the trial court in any connected criminal case shall be binding on them. The State would remain free to take appropriate action in accordance with law once such an order is passed.

The Senior AAG was directed to inform the concerned department to allow the petitioners, as well as others similarly situated and affected by the notification, to continue their work until disposal of the writ application. This direction extends the practical benefit of the stay beyond the named petitioners to all appointees who are identically placed.

Outcome

The operation, implementation, and execution of Notification No. 06/LO.S.A.-01-07/5404 of 2026 dated 18 August 2026, in relation to Advertisement No. 18 of 2023 for Food Safety Officer recruitment, stands stayed until further orders of the High Court. The State respondents are directed to file a counter-affidavit detailing the progress of investigation and any further developments. The case is listed on 15 September 2026 at 2:30 p.m.