Serious allegations—including the manipulation of OMR sheets, data leaks, and flawed evaluation—have surfaced regarding 9 major examinations conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC). The hard work of lakhs of young aspirants is now being called into question.

From the alleged tampering of OMR sheets to the leaking of candidate data before the declaration of results—25 percent of the examinations are under a cloud, casting doubt on the integrity of the entire recruitment system.

Evidence of alleged irregularities has emerged in 9 examinations conducted by the JPSC. A charge sheet filed by the CID in the Ranchi High Court highlights grave issues, such as the tampering of OMR sheets, the filling out of answer scripts after the examinations had concluded, and the granting of undue advantages to certain candidates.

This matter concerns the future of thousands of young people who spend years preparing for government jobs. Some families exhaust their life savings on coaching, while many candidates continue to appear for these exams until they reach the upper age limit.

Given this, the question arises: what exactly went wrong in these JPSC examinations? What was the role of the examination agency and the commission officials at the time? And, should these allegations be proven, how will justice be served to the affected candidates?

Let us examine which examinations have come under scrutiny:

1. 14th Combined Civil Services Examination - 2025

For the 14th Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination - 2025, 2,17,104 admit cards were issued for 103 available positions. Following the preliminary examination, 2,204 candidates were declared successful and qualified for the main examination.

The CID charge sheet raises serious concerns regarding the security of the OMR sheets and the evaluation process. It is alleged that some answers were altered after the fact. There is even a claim that one candidate was declared successful despite having answered only 48 questions.

The question now remains: who had access to the OMR sheets, and who carried out these alleged alterations? 

2. 11th to 13th Combined Civil Services Examination

Through the 11th to 13th Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination, 342 positions were filled. A total of 320,661 candidates appeared for the preliminary examination, of whom 7,011 were successful. In the main examination, 864 candidates succeeded, and the final results were declared on July 25, 2025.

According to the CID charge sheet, a list containing the names and roll numbers of 15 candidates was discovered at the residence of the then-commission chairman, L. Khiangte. It is alleged that 10 of these candidates were successful. The charge sheet also mentions the analysis of mobile location data and information regarding potential selections prior to the interviews.

The most significant question is: if a list pertaining to the selections already existed, what was its purpose? Was this merely a coincidence, or was there an attempt to influence the selection process?

3. Forest Range Officer (FRO) Examination

The Forest Range Officer (FRO) examination was conducted to fill 170 positions. Approximately 14,000 candidates appeared for this examination. A total of 2,405 candidates were declared successful in the preliminary examination, and 743 in the main examination.

The CID report raises questions regarding the role of individuals associated with the examination agency, TDPL. It is alleged that the answer scripts were filled out at a secret location approximately 10 days after the examination had concluded.

If these allegations are proven, it would raise serious concerns regarding the security and evaluation process of the answer scripts following the examination. The investigation must now clarify who allegedly filled out these answer scripts and which officials were aware of this activity.

4. Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) Examination

The Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF) examination was conducted to fill 78 positions. Approximately 16,000 candidates appeared for the preliminary examination. Of these, 1,110 candidates were successful, while 368 candidates were declared successful in the main examination.

The CID report mentions an alleged similarity between a model answer script and the answer script of one of the candidates. In this case, irregularities were investigated based on a comparison of the answer scripts and a forensic examination.

The question now arises: if an exact similarity was found between the two answer scripts, how did the corresponding answers reach the candidate in question? Did anyone receive an unfair advantage over other candidates?

5. Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) Examination

The Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) examination was conducted for recruitment to 64 positions. The preliminary examination took place on June 10, 2024, in which 1,590 candidates were declared successful. The main examination was held between August 2 and August 4, 2025, and the final results were released on January 10, 2026.

Details from the CID charge sheet include allegations that the examination agency provided undue advantages to certain candidates. It has been indicated that the roles of the individuals involved in the examination system and the selection process are under investigation.

The question now is whether the prescribed rules were followed during the examination and evaluation process. Did any official or agency attempt to influence the selection process?

6. Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET)-2024

The Jharkhand Eligibility Test (JET)-2024 is conducted to determine eligibility for the position of Assistant Professor and for admission to PhD programs in universities across Jharkhand. Advertisement number 08/2025 was issued for this examination. The application process began on September 16, 2025, and the examination was held on April 26, 2026.

According to the CID report, questions have been raised regarding the decision to entrust the responsibility of conducting the examination to the 'Biswas Agency'. It is also noted that an individual associated with this agency has been implicated in a separate paper-leak case.

This raises the question: what criteria were used to select this agency? Was its past record and credibility verified? That said, the mere fact that an individual is named in another case does not, in itself, constitute proof of their involvement in this specific examination.

7. Regular Examination for Assistant Public Prosecutor (2025)

The advertisement number for the regular examination for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was 06/2025. The application process commenced on June 29, 2025. Concerns have been raised regarding the eligibility of the candidates and the validity of the mandatory certificates submitted during this recruitment process.

Details from the CID charge sheet point to irregularities concerning the computer certificates of certain candidates and the overall selection process. It is alleged that there were lapses in verifying the validity of these certificates and the eligibility of the candidates.

This leads to the question: were the certificates of the selected candidates verified in accordance with the prescribed rules? Furthermore, if any discrepancies are discovered in the documents, how will the accountability of the officials responsible for the verification process be determined?

8. Backlog Examination for Assistant Public Prosecutor (2025)

The advertisement number for the backlog examination for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was 05/2025, with the application process beginning on June 24, 2025. In this examination, too, allegations of irregularities have surfaced regarding candidate eligibility and the validity of their certificates.

The CID investigation has raised questions about computer certificates and eligibility-related documents issued in other states. It is alleged that some candidates succeeded in the selection process based on suspicious certificates.

This raises the question: were the certificates issued by authorities in other states subjected to proper scrutiny? If any certificate is found to be forged, will the roles of the officials involved in the selection process and the verification of these documents also be investigated?

9. Food Safety Officer Examination 2023

The Food Safety Officer (FSO) examination was conducted under advertisement number 18/2023, with 56 positions to be filled. The written examination took place on May 27, 2024, and 149 candidates were declared successful. Interviews were held between February 25 and February 27, 2026.

Details from the CID charge sheet raise questions regarding the process used to prepare the examination results. The report also mentions the primary accused, Abhay Kumar Tiwari. The roles of the individuals involved and the allegations against them must be verified based on the evidence gathered during the investigation.

The question now arises: how did the alleged irregularities in the result-preparation process occur? Were the established rules followed at every stage of the examination and interview process? Furthermore, if these irregularities are proven, who will be held accountable?