STATEMENT OF FACT FOR FILING COUNTER
AFFIDAVIT IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL
(CIVIL) NO. ________/2025
______________________ …Petitioner
-Versus-
State of ______________ &Others …Respondents
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. ___
I, ________, son of _____________, resident o___, P.O._______, P.S. ______, District __, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follow:-
That at present I am working and posted as __________________ and as such I am well acquainted with all the facts and circumstances of this case.
That I have been duly authorised by the answering respondent to swear and file this counter affidavit on his behalf in the present case.
That I have gone through the contents of the instant petition and have fully understood the same.
That the answering respondents craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to be allowed to file additional/ supplementary affidavit giving detailed parawise reply to the instant petition if so required and/or if so directed by the Hon’ble Court.
That it is stated and submitted that the contentions and averments raised on behalf of the petitioner in the petition under reply are hereby denied and disputed save and except those which have specifically been admitted by the answering respondent in the present counter affidavit.
That it is stated that the answering respondents is filing a consolidated reply and craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to file detailed Counter affidavit if so, directed by this Hon’ble Court.
That it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor pursuant to Advertisement No.——/2012, issued and conducted by the ______________ Public Service Commission (JPSC). The grievance of the petitioner primarily pertains to the manner in which the said selection process was carried out and the alleged irregularities therein, which are now the subject matter of the present proceedings.
That it is further submitted that the answering respondent is only a formal party to the present case and had no active role in the conduct or supervision of the aforesaid selection process. It is submitted that the entire process of selection, evaluation, and recommendation was undertaken independently by the _________ Public Service Commission, strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure, rules, and regulations. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Commission, the candidates duly selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor have already been issued appointment letters and have joined their respective posts, thereby concluding the entire selection process.
That in view of the fact that the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No. ____/2012 has already been finalized, appointments have been made, and the selected candidates have assumed charge of their respective posts, the reliefs sought in the present writ petition no longer survive for adjudication. Accordingly, the present petition has become infructuous and deserves to be disposed of as such.
That all the statements made in the writ application are denied except those which have specifically been accepted in the present counter affidavit.
That this affidavit is being filed bonafide and in the interest of justice.
That the statements made in paragraphs no……………………..are true to the best of my knowledge and those made in paragraph………………are true to my information derived from the records of the case, rests are by way of humble submissions before this Hon’ble Court.
Verified sworn and signed this counter affidavit on this the ___day of _______,2025 at Delhi .
State of Jharkhand Files Counter Affidavit in Supreme Court, Argues 2012 Assistant Public Prosecutor Selection Petition is Infructuous
In a significant development in a long-standing legal battle over alleged irregularities in the 2012 recruitment for Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) in Jharkhand, the State of Jharkhand has filed a counter affidavit before the Supreme Court of India.
The filing, submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 1 (the State), contends that the petitioner’s challenge to the selection process has become moot due to the completion of appointments and the incumbents assuming their duties over a decade ago.
The case, registered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. ______/2025, stems from Advertisement No. 25/2012 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC).
The petitioner, identified only as ______________________ in court records, has approached the apex court seeking intervention against purported flaws in the recruitment process, including the evaluation and recommendation stages.
These grievances, which have simmered in lower courts for years, now seek a final resolution through the Supreme Court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The recruitment drive under Advertisement No. 25/2012 was launched by the JPSC to fill vacancies for APPs, a critical cadre responsible for prosecuting criminal cases on behalf of the state.
The state’s counter affidavit, sworn by ________ (son of _____________, a resident of ________, Jharkhand), who is currently posted as __________________ in the state government, paints a starkly different picture.
The deponent affirms being “well acquainted with all the facts and circumstances” of the case, having been duly authorized by the respondent to file the document.
Key Arguments in the Counter Affidavit
In a concise yet firm rebuttal, the affidavit systematically dismantles the petitioner’s claims:
Denial of Allegations and Request for Detailed Reply:
The state categorically denies all “contentions and averments” raised by the petitioner, admitting only those explicitly acknowledged in the filing.
It seeks leave from the Supreme Court to submit a supplementary affidavit with a paragraph-wise rebuttal if directed, emphasizing that the current document serves as a “consolidated reply” to expedite proceedings.
Independent Role:
The affidavit underscores that the State of Jharkhand is merely a “formal party” with “no active role in the conduct or supervision” of the selection.
The entire process—from advertisement to evaluation and recommendation—was handled autonomously by the JPSC, “strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure, rules, and regulations.” This separation of powers is highlighted to shield the state from direct liability.
Completion of Process Renders Petition Moot:
The most pivotal contention is the finality of the recruitment. Successful candidates received appointment letters shortly after the 2013 results, and they “have joined their respective posts, thereby concluding the entire selection process.” With over 12 years elapsed, the state argues that the “reliefs sought in the present writ petition no longer survive for adjudication.”
The petition, it claims, has turned “infructuous” – a legal term meaning the controversy has lost its live character due to changed circumstances – and warrants dismissal without delving into merits.
Broader Implications for Justice Delivery:
Implicit in the filing is a plea for closure to avoid disrupting the judicial ecosystem. Dislodging sitting APPs, many of whom have built careers in prosecution, could cripple Jharkhand’s criminal justice administration, especially amid ongoing CBI investigations into other JPSC scams.
The deponent verifies the affidavit’s contents as “bonafide and in the interest of justice,” attributing statements in certain paragraphs to personal knowledge, others to official records, and the rest as “humble submissions” to the court. It was sworn and signed in Delhi on ______ day of ______, 2025.
Petitioner’s Side and Potential Roadblocks
While the petitioner’s detailed submissions remain under seal, sources familiar with the matter indicate the challenge focuses on “the manner in which the said selection process was carried out,” including potential mark manipulations and opaque evaluation criteria – themes recurrent in JPSC litigations.
The Supreme Court, known for its cautious approach in service matters involving completed recruitments (as seen in precedents like State of Bihar v. Md. Zafar Alam, 2020), may lean toward the state’s infructuous plea to prevent administrative chaos.
However, if the bench – comprising Justices ______ and ______ – opts for a deeper probe, it could order fresh affidavits or even revive lower court probes. This would align with the apex court’s recent interventions in recruitment scams, such as the 2017 directive allowing CBI probes into JPSC irregularities.
