Ethics · 22 Aug 2026

Sachin Kumar v DSSSB blanket cancellation

With reference to the Jharkhand High Court's stay on the cancellation of 342 civil service appointments, which one of the following correctly matches the principle with its actual application in this case?

AAudi alteram partem - was satisfied here because the state government waited until a 26-day hunger strike had run its full course before cancelling the appointments
BSachin Kumar v. DSSSB precedent - requires the government to segregate tainted candidates from untainted ones through individualised findings before ordering a blanket cancellation of examination results
CArticle 311 - was held to grant appointed civil servants complete immunity from termination even where individual misconduct is separately established
DDoctrine of legitimate expectation - was cited by the High Court as the sole ground for staying the cancellation of the 342 appointments
About this question

Why in news

The Jharkhand High Court stayed the state government's cancellation of 342 civil service appointments and 56 Food Safety Officer posts, ruling that terminating regularly appointed officers without individually establishing their involvement in exam irregularities violates natural justice.

Why for UPSC

UPSC's Ethics paper regularly tests whether an aspirant can distinguish between similarly-sounding due-process principles and correctly identify which one actually governs a given administrative action - a distinction this case makes concrete through a real precedent citation.

Prelims summary

Blanket cancellation of examination results without individually establishing which candidates were involved in irregularities violates natural justice, per the Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB standard; ending a protest and establishing guilt are legally distinct requirements.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.