Cancellation of TDPL exams leads to job loss for about 3000 people following student protests in Ranchi

Amid student protests that continued in Jharkhand for 24 days, an important decision was made. Chief Minister Hemant Soren announced the annulment of all exams conducted by the TDPL agency, including JSSC CGL, as well as the cancellation of the corresponding results.

A commission chaired by a retired judge will be formed to conduct an impartial review of the entire incident.

Students in Jharkhand have been holding continuous protests for 24 days due to alleged irregularities in the conduct of competitive examinations. Previously, the team of ministers attempted to resolve the issue through negotiations with the protesting students, but previous talks did not yield results.

Among the youth protesting in Ranchi and holding demonstrations for the past 20 days, one main question is being raised: if the government can cancel the 14th JPSC exams and delayed exams, why is it hesitant about canceling the JSSC-CGL exam?

Recently, government representative and minister Hemant Soren, Sudivya Kumar Sonu, held extensive negotiations with student delegations. The government claims to have met '98% of student demands,' but it has categorically refused to cancel the JSSC-CGL exam, which has caused the most resonance.

The government's main argument is legal in nature. Minister Sudivya Kumar Sonu stated that the JSSC-CGL exam was conducted under the supervision and in accordance with the directives of the Supreme and High Courts. In the government's view, the regional government does not have the right to unilaterally cancel an exam when the matter is under the oversight of higher courts. Cancellation without strong legal grounds would lead to judicial review proceedings.

The second argument is that the CGL exam process has already advanced significantly: results have been published, and many successful candidates have already started working in their appointed positions. In this situation, canceling the entire exam could lead to already selected candidates filing lawsuits, halting the entire process for years.

Students demand the complete cancellation of the CGL exam and an investigation into the matter by the CBI. However, the government took the opposite stance and rejected the request for a CBI investigation. Instead, the government proposed an inquiry through the CID and suggested creating a monitoring committee chaired by a 'retired judge.' The government added that if the CID investigation finds evidence of large financial transactions, it will approach the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for an investigation, but the exam will not be canceled under any circumstances.

Protesting students (JPSC-JSSC Nyay Manch candidates) completely reject the government's arguments. Leaders of the student movements claim that the government is spreading falsehoods about meeting 98% of the demands. In fact, out of 13 disputed exams, only three were canceled (the preliminary stage of the 14th JPSC and the delayed JPSC exams of 2023 and 2025). Students believe that since there is full evidence of material leakage and fraud by the TDPL agency, canceling the exam under the pretext of court action only protects the syndicate.

In Haryana, the deadlock between the government and students regarding alleged examination irregularities continues. The third round of negotiations also yielded no results. The government claims to have addressed about 98% of the students' demands, but the demand for an CBI investigation into the JSSC-CGL exam cannot be accepted. On the other hand, students insist that protests will not cease until this demand is met, and they are preparing to take to the streets.

The question arises as to why the entire dispute needs to be prolonged over one demand when most issues can be resolved through dialogue between the government and the students? Students believe that the intervention of a central agency is necessary to ensure an impartial and reliable investigation into the issues raised regarding the examination process. They argue, 'Is it bad to remove doubts from the minds of the students?'

The government should realize that the recommendation for an investigation does not imply an admission of guilt. Accepting the demand for a CBI investigation does not mean the government is found guilty. If the government states complete transparency in the examination process, this statement will become even more weighty after an impartial investigation. Then everything will become clear.

Hemant Soren's government in Ranchi appears to be repeating the same mistake recently made by the central government concerning students protesting at Jantar Mantar. When a protest is dragged out, the issue between the government and the demonstrators gradually transforms from a matter of demands into a matter of prestige. After this, the government starts to believe that if it meets one demand, it will be perceived as weakness. It is this mindset that makes any protest unnecessarily protracted.

In the case of students, such a stance is even more detrimental. Issues of employment and competitive exams are linked to the future of the youth. If there is suspicion of irregularity in any exam, it affects not only that exam. The time, money, and careers of thousands of young people are at stake. In such a situation, the government's primary task must be to assure students that their complaints are being treated with utmost seriousness.

The government has taken several positive steps. These include the recommendation for an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) into alleged financial irregularities in JPSC, the announcement of the creation of an accelerated court for examination matters, and the promise to file a charge sheet within 90 days, as well as the decision to involve experts from IIT-ISM Dhanbad, IIM Ranchi, and XLRI Jamshedpur to improve the examination system in the JSSC-CGL case under the chairmanship of a former Supreme Court judge. However, despite all these steps, if the students' biggest doubt is not eliminated, the government must reconsider its position.

Chief Minister Hemant Soren's statement that problems will be solved through dialogue, not force, is in the right direction. But dialogue is not just holding meetings. Dialogue also means that the government understands the main concern of the opponent and seeks a way to resolve it.

Imagine the Chief Minister personally visiting the protesting students, talking to them, and giving them assurances that the government is ready to recommend a CBI investigation. This will not diminish the government's prestige; on the contrary, it will enhance it. If the investigation shows that the government and the examination system are clean, this will be the greatest proof for the government. And if any wrongdoing is discovered, the path to action against the guilty will become clear.

In politics, small issues often turn into crises, making them a matter of prestige. The same threat exists with Hemant Soren. Prolonging the student movement is not beneficial for either the government or the students. The government should abandon hiding behind technical and legal arguments and take a political initiative. If the Chief Minister himself comes to the protest site, talks to the students, stops their hunger strike or sit-in, and guarantees an investigation, he will gain political advantage. Today's youth need not orders, but trust. They must feel that the government cares about their future.

This crisis is an opportunity for Hemant Soren. It can allow him to turn it into a 'government versus students' struggle or to set an example of dialogue and problem-solving. If the doubts of thousands of students are dispelled by the recommendation for a CBI investigation, it will be a victory for democracy, not a defeat for the government. By doing what the Modi government failed to do at the central level, Hemant Soren can forge his own image among the students.