In a recent development, the Supreme Court has declined to intervene in the case related to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) Assistant Town Planner competitive examination, upholding the decision of the Jharkhand High Court dated September 16, 2023.

Justices Hima Kohli and A. M. Khanwilkar dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by petitioner Devasmita Basu, thereby denying relief to the applicant.

The case revolved around the JPSC's decision to grant exemptions to 186 applicants, allowing them to submit the Institute of Town Planning (INDIA) certificate after the application deadline of August 10, 2020. Advocates Siddharth Ranjan and Aabhas Parimal, representing respondents Swapnil Mayuresh and Vivek Harshil, argued against this exemption, asserting that it was both incorrect and unconstitutional.

Ranjan and Parimal contended that the JPSC lacked the authority to grant exemptions during the appointment process. They emphasized that the Commission's decision to include ineligible candidates in the appointment process by allowing them to submit certificates beyond the stipulated deadline was inappropriate. The JPSC's deviation from the standard procedure, according to the advocates, compromised the integrity of the appointment process.

The heart of the matter lies in the contention that only eligible candidates who adhered to the application deadline should have been considered for the Assistant Town Planner competitive examination. The inclusion of 186 candidates who received an exemption to submit the required certificate raised questions about the fairness and legality of the selection process.

Devasmita Basu, the petitioner, challenged the decision of the Jharkhand High Court by filing the Special Leave Petition (SLP), seeking the Supreme Court's intervention. However, with the recent dismissal of the SLP, the Supreme Court has affirmed the Jharkhand High Court's ruling, leaving the JPSC's controversial decision in the spotlight.