SACHIN KUMAR & ORS. versus DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) & ORS. on 3 March 2021

[2021] 2 S.C.R. 1073

SACHIN KUMAR & ORS.

v.

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD(DSSSB) & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 639-640 of 2021)

MARCH 03, 2021

[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND

M. R. SHAH, JJ.]

Service Law – Recruitment – Examination – Irregularities in– An advertisement dated 26.12.2009 issued for 231 vacancies forthe post of Head Clerk [(Grade 2) (DASS)] in GNCTD – 62,056application received – 8,224 appeared in Tier-I Examination –Results were declared in 2014 – Shortlisted candidates appeared inTier-II Examination in the year 2015 – Several complaints werereceived regarding leakage of question papers, mass cheating,allotment of common examination centre and rooms to members ofthe same family, in the conduct of both the Tier-l and Tier-llexaminations – Two Committees were constituted to enquire into theirregularities, both found serious irregularities in the examination– An FIR was registered at Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) u/s.13(1)(d) of Corruption Act r/w. s.120B of IPC – Dy. CMrecommended for the cancellation of exam and a notification wasissued for cancellation of exam – Central Administrative Tribunalset aside the said cancellation notification holding that theappointments would be subject to ACB Investigation – High Courtwhile upholding the order of the Tribunal, confined the relief toonly six applicants who approached the Tribunal – On appeal, held:A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to thenorm of equality of opportunity u/Art. 16(1) is a constitutionalrequirement – Where the recruitment to public employment standsvitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, theentire process becomes illegitimate – The requirement that a publicbody must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entireprocess of selection – Recruitment to public service must commandpublic confidence – In the present case, the report of the Committeedwells on: (i) The delay of five years in holding the Tier-I examinationafter the advertisement was released in 2009; and (ii) The issuance

A

B

CDEF

G

H

1074SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aof admit cards only through the electronic mode, which was notprescribed in the advertisement – Besides other irregularities,Committee also noted that there was a racket which had led to theimpersonation of candidates – There was absence of randomization,many cases had emerged where two or more members of a singlefamily sat in consecutive order and were falling under the zone ofBprobable selection – The Committee found that the videographywas blurred, thumb impressions were unrecognizable, jammers werenot working properly and candidates were allowed to appearirrespective of their educational qualifications – Further, it was notedthat allegations of flying squad members passing answers ontoCcandidates – Considering all the irregularities, the SecretaryVigilance also opined that the entire process of recruitment appearedto be vitiated – There was a denial of equal access to the Tier-lexamination and the allegations showed that the credibility of theprocess itself had been eroded – In such a situation, where a decisionis taken by the Government to cancel the entire process, it cannotDbe held to be irrational or arbitrary, applying the yardstick of fairprocedure and proportionality to the decision-making process – Boththe judgments of High Court and the Tribunal are unsustainable.

Constitution of India – Article 16(1) – Equality of opportunity– Public Employment – irregularities – Held: A fair and reasonableEprocess of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality ofopportunity u/Art. 16(1) is a constitutional requirement – Where therecruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequenceof systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomesillegitimate.F

Conclusion

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Right To Equality –Recruitment – Held: The constitutional values which undergirdArticles 14 and 16 mandate that selection processes conducted bypublic authorities to make recruitments have to be fair, transparentand accountable – A fair and reasonable process is a fundamentalGrequirement of Article 14 – Where it is possible to segregate personswho have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them for theirwrong- doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint – To treat the innocent andthe wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequenceof the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to ArticleH14 because unequals would then be treated equally.

Service Law – Recruitment – Irregularities in Examination –Position in Law – discussed.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Over the last five decades, several decisions ofthis Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when theprocess of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, theanswer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in theprocess have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate thesanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon orcross-over into the domain of fraud as a result of which thecredibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. Thisconstitutes one end of the spectrum where the authorityconducting the examination or convening the selection processcomes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event orcircumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving nooption but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision alongthose lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exerciseinto individual acts involving the use of mal-practices or unfairmeans. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on asystemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted fromthe untainted participants in the process. Large scale irregularitiesincluding those which have the effect of denying equal access tosimilarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaisewhich has eroded the credibility of the process. At the other endof the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in theprocess who appear at the examination or selection test are guiltyof irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible tosegregate persons who are guilty of wrong-doing from otherswho have adhered to the rules and to exclude the former fromthe process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrong-doing should not pay a price for those who are actually found tobe involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrong-doers,the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to passmuster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion.This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as aprinciple of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in theconstitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and ABC

D

EF

G

H

ABC

D

EF

G

H

Areasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to postssubject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1)is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process isa fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where therecruitment to public employment stands vitiated as aconsequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire processBbecomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible tosegregate persons who have indulged in mal-practices and topenalise them for their wrong- doing, it would be unfair to imposethe burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint.To treat the innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjectingCthe former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entireprocess would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals wouldthen be treated equally. The requirement that a public body mustact in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process ofselection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that theDrecruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to takedecisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preservethe sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop ofthese principles, that it becomes appropriate to advert tothe precedents of this Court which hold the field. [Para 33]E[1106-F-H; 1107-A-H]2. The Committee noted that there was a delay of almostfive years in conducting the Tier-I examination. As a result, ofthe 62,056 applicants only 8224 had appeared at the Tier-Iexamination giving rise to an apprehension that adequateinformation had not been furnished to candidates. The CommitteeFfurnished examples of candidates who had secured high marksin Tier - I examination but extremely low marks in the Tier-IIexam. Candidates also appeared to be concentrated from aparticular area of Delhi. The Committee found it “astonishingthat the whole marks lists is dominated by a particular section ofGsociety” based on their surnames. There were instances ofcandidates who had secured high marks in Tier-I failing to appearat the Tier-II examination. The Committee was critical of therole of DSSSB in failing to devote serious attention to theirregularities which had taken place during the course of theexamination. [Para 49][1122-G-H; 1123-A-B]H

3. The Committee had representations before it fromcandidates as well. The Committee found that members of thesame family were found to be sitting in close proximity both inthe Tier-I and Tier-II examinations of which details were tabulatedin the report. The Committee noted that it had addressed aquestionnaire to the officials of DSSSB in regard to the allegedirregularities but they expressed their inability to answer thequeries. The Committee found that in the absence ofrandomization, many cases had emerged where two or moremembers of a single family sat in consecutive order and werefalling under the zone of probable selection. A majority ofcandidates falling in the zone of selection appeared to belong tothe same geographical area. In this backdrop and consideringthe voluminous nature of the documentary material, theCommittee was of the view that either the CBI or the CrimeBranch would be able to investigate into the matter. The matterdid not rest there. In its report, the first Committee found thatthere were serious irregularities in the examinations conductedby DSSSB for the post of Grade-II DASS. The report of theCommittee dwells on: (i) The delay of five years in holding theTier-I examination after the advertisement was released in 2009;and (ii) The issuance of admit cards only through the electronicmode, which was not prescribed in the advertisement.[Para 50][1123-B-F]

4. The Committee was of the view that one of the mainreasons for the appearance of a small proportion of candidates ascompared to the applications was the inability of candidates toaccess the internet to download the e-admit cards. This, in theview of the Committee, prima facie vitiated the selection process.DSSSB in its reply had noted that it would earlier remit the admitcards by post but this gave rise to administrative difficulties as aresult of postal delays, changes in address and the issuance ofduplicate cards in place of those lost or damaged in transit.[Para 51][1123-F-H]

5. On 5 June 2013, the Board had followed the pattern ofthe UPSC and Railway Board and decided to alsoissue e-admitcards which was to be given a wide publicity. On this aspect theCommittee noted that the advertisement had not mentioned that AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aadmit cards shall be issued through the electronic medium only.A period of five years had elapsed since the date of theadvertisement. It was not possible for the candidates to keep avigil on the notifications of a single examination. In this backdrop,the decision of DSSSB, during the course of the process, to allowonly e-admit cards was a deviation which resulted in a smallBnumber of candidates appearing in the Tier-I examination. Thiswas clearly a pointer to the denial of equal access and opportunityto all candidates in the selection process. The Committeebuttressed this finding by observing that there was a wide variationbetween the marks obtained in the Tier-I and Tier-IICexaminations. In the absence of randomization, it was found thatmembers of a family and close relatives sat in the same room anddetails of these candidates were duly tabulated. The Committeedealt with the explanation of DSSSB that the software forrandomization was not available prior to 28 June 2015 and thatsteps have been taken for reshuffling candidates. The CommitteeDdid not accept the explanation of the Board, noting that ifrandomisation had been done in the Tier-I examination, it wasthen inconceivable as to how family members and close relativessat in the same room. Moreover, it found it surprising thatrandomisation had been done in Tier-I and not in Tier-II. Though,Eaccording to DSSSB, manual reshuffling had been done for theTier- II examination, even then a considerable number of closelyrelated persons sat in proximity at the Tier-II examination.Besides these irregularities, the Committee noted that there wasa racket which had led to the impersonation of candidates. Thisracket involved a person who was the Chief Invigilator at aFparticular centre. It was alleged that he was connected with acoaching centre which was also involved in the leakage of thequestion papers. The Committee noted the allegation that thisperson had repeatedly fixed his duties in a choice of his owncentres with the help of DSSSB staff and there were instances ofGimpersonation which had emerged. The Committee proceededto tabulate these instances. Apart from this, the Committee foundthat the videography was blurred, thumb impressions wereunrecognizable, jammers were not working properly andcandidates had been allowed to appear irrespective of their H

educational qualifications. Further, it was noted that allegationsof flying squad members passing answers onto candidates couldnot be ruled out. Now, in this backdrop, the Secretary Vigilanceopined that the entire process of recruitment appeared to bevitiated. [Para 52][1124-A-H; 1125-A]

6. The complaints were carefully analysed by the firstCommittee and as noted earlier serious irregularities were found.The irregularities were not confined to acts of mal-practice orunfair means on the part of a specific group of persons. On thecontrary, the report of the Committee found deficiencies of asystemic nature which cast serious doubts on the legitimacy ofthe entire process of recruitment involving both the Tier-I andTier-II examinations. The order of the Deputy Chief Ministerdated 23 December 2015 did not differ with the conclusions ofthe first Committee. In fact, the said order refrained fromcommenting on the findings of the first Committee. All that theDeputy Chief Minister’s order directed was the narrowing of thescope of further investigation to one of the irregularities, that is,impersonation. In directing that a verification be carried out onwhether any of the candidates in the zone of selection had beenguilty of impersonation, the Deputy Chief Minister’s order didnot wipe out the irregularities in the entire examination process.It is not possible to accept the submission that after ordering averification on impersonation, nothing further remained to be doneand that there could be no further rejection of the sanctity of theprocess on the basis of the report of the first Committee. It isquite possible that the Deputy Chief Minister directed a furtherinvestigation into the allegations of impersonation only to lendcredibility to the ultimate decision which he would take. MrPatwalia has made a strenuous effort to read from the explanationsubmitted by DSSSB, urging that as many as three IAS officersand other officers who had appended their signatures to theexplanatory note provided a justification to the defence that theTier-I and Tier-II examinations did not suffer from flaws. It mustbe noted that the conduct of DSSSB and its officials was itselfunder a cloud. Their explanation could by no means be regardedas conclusive or binding upon the authorities of GNCTD. The A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

ADeputy Chief Minister in recommending that the entire processbe cancelled emphasised the systemic nature of the violationswhich had taken place. These violations may or may not involveall of the candidates within the ultimate zone of selection but thatin our view is beside the point for the simple reason that thegravamen of the charge in the present case is not in regard toBthe taint which attaches to a specific group of persons but to thesanctity of the recruitment process as a whole. The precedentsof this Court sufficiently demonstrate that when the credibility ofan entire examination stands vitiated by systemic irregularities,the issue then is not about seeking to identify the candidatesCwho are tainted. In the present case, as we have seen, there wasa basic denial of equal access to the Tier-I examination. Thenature of the allegations which were found to be substantiatedupon a careful examination by the first Committee showed thatthe credibility of the process itself had been eroded. In such asituation, where a decision is taken by the Government to cancelDthe entire process, it cannot be held to be irrational or arbitrary,applying the yardstick of fair procedure and proportionality tothe decision-making process. [Para 55][1126-B-H; 1127-A-D]7. Recruitment to public services must command publicconfidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil publicEfunctions associated with the functioning of the Government.Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellationmay undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specificallybe found to be involved in wrong-doing. But that is not sufficientto nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination whereFthe nature of the wrong-doing cuts through the entire process soas to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinationswhich have been held for recruitment. Both the High Court andthe Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive focus onthe report of the second Committee which was confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee isGonly one facet of the matter. The Deputy Chief Minister wasjustified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending thatthe entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findingswhich were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Thosefindings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found anyH

fault with those findings. In this view of the matter, both thejudgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable.[Para 57][1127-G-H; 1128-A-C]

8. The Tribunal while setting aside the decision to cancelthe recruitment process directed the Government to process theappointments of all 281 candidates who were found to be withinthe zone of selection though as a matter of fact only 6 of them hadmoved the Tribunal. After DSSSB and GNCTD moved the HighCourt in proceedings under Article 226 to challenge the decisionof the Tribunal, intervention applications were moved by severalcandidates. These interventions were rejected by the High Courtand we have also extracted from the order passed during thependency of the proceedings on 15 December 2017 . The HighCourt while dismissing the applications for intervention notedthat the cause of action had accrued on 15 March 2016 when theentire examination had been cancelled, in spite of which none ofthe intervening candidates had challenged the decision. Thejudgment of the High Court in the present case was delivered on13 January 2020 and it is only thereafter that this Court has beenmoved under Article 136 of the Constitution. Some of thepetitioners who instituted Special Leave Petitions before thisCourt had not even moved applications for intervention beforethe High Court. Others did not pursue their remedies againstthe order of the High Court dated 15 December 2017 for over 2years. They have taken no steps to challenge the decision forthe cancellation of the examination. In view of the fact that thisCourt has upheld the submissions of DSSSB and GNCTD andproceed to set aside the judgment of the High Court, the SLPsfiled by the candidates would have to stand rejected, in any event.[Para 59][1128-E-H; 1129-A-B]

9. For the above reasons, this Court order and direct:

(I) The facts which have come to light during the course ofthe hearing of this batch of SLPs reflect on the serious flaws inthe process which was conducted by DSSSB. DSSSB and GNCTDmust now take adequate measures to ensure against therecurrence of such instances which erode the credibility of and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Apublic confidence in the recruitment process. This court directsthat a comprehensive exercise to re-visit the modalities andsafeguards be carried out within a period of two months to ensurethat the probity of the recruitment process in future is maintained;(ii) The notification dated 15 March 2016 of GNCTD cancellingthe Tier-I and Tier-II examinations held for recruitment to theBpost of Head Clerk [(Grade II (DASS)] under post code 90/09 isupheld. [Para 60][1129-B-E]

Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas ChandraSinha & Others (1970) 1 SCC 648 : [1970] 3 SCR 963;Anamica Mishra v. UP Public Service Commission,Allahabad (1990) Supp. SCC 692: [1989] Suppl. SCR124; Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, MP v. AbhilashShiksha Prasar Samiti (1998) 9 SCC 236; Union ofIndia v. Rajesh P U Puthuvalnikathu (2003) 7 SCC 285: [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 883; Inderpreet Singh Kahlonv. State of Punjab (2006) 11 SCC 356 : [2006] 1 Suppl.SCR 772; Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC644 : [2014] 6 SCR 383; Chairman All India RailwayRecruitment Board v. K Shyam Kumar (2010) 6 SCC614 : [2010] 6 SCR 291; State of Tamil Nadu v. AKalaimani 2019 SCC Online 1002; Gohil VishvarajHanubhai v. State of Gujarat (2017) 13 SCC 621 :[2017] 3 SCR 401 – relied on.

C

D

E

Case Law Reference

F

G

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal Nos. 639-640 of 2021

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.01.2020 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) No. 5756 of 2017 and WP(C) No.13373 of 2018.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 643-644 of 2021, 641-642 of 2021, 645-646 of2021, 649-650 of 2021, 647-648 of 2021, 651 of 2021, 653-654 of 2021,652 of 2021, 655-656 of 2021, 657-658 of 2021, 659-660 of 2021.

Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Ritin Rai, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advs.,Sibo Sankar Mishra, Piyush Beriwal, Ahush Puri, B. V. Balaram Das,Rajnish Kumar Jha, Parveen Kumar, Pulkit Tare, Sandeepan Pathak,Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Aditya Shekhar, Chandra Shekhar, PrashantShekhar, Ashwani Saini, Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi,Sahil Tagotra, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Raghav Sharma, Ishant Arora,Ms. Mitali Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J

This judgment has been divided into the following sections:

A Broad contours of the litigation

B Factual background

C Proceedings before the Tribunal

D Proceedings before the Delhi High Court E Submissions F The position in law G The present case A Broad contours of the litigation

1. Leave granted.

2. This judgment visits a familiar conundrum in servicejurisprudence. The constitutional values which undergird Articles 14 and16 mandate that selection processes conducted by public authorities tomake recruitments have to be fair, transparent and accountable. All too

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Aoften, human fallibility and foibles intrude into the selection processes.Selection involves intense competition and there is no dearth of individualswho try and bend the rules to gain an unfair leap in the race. Irregularitiesin the process give rise to misgivings over whether the process has deniedequal access to all persons. The sanctity of the selection process comesunder a cloud. The detection of individual wrongdoing by candidatesBmay result in action being taken to exclude those whose credentials orperformance is tainted. But when the entire process is tainted, theauthority in charge of conducting it may decide to cancel the selectionas a whole. Judicial review is then invoked to challenge the decision tocancel the entire process. The guiding principles have evolved over theCpast five decades as new challenges emerged and novel attempts tosuborn the legitimacy of recruitment processes have come to the fore.The Delhi High Court in the present case upheld the view of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal (“Tribunal”) that the cancellation of the entireprocess was invalid but it confined the relief to six candidates who had moved the proceedings before the Tribunal in the first instance. LikeDother cases of its genre, this batch of appeals calls the court to balancetwo competing considerations : the need to preserve public confidencein and the sanctity of selection to public posts and the requirement ofobserving fairness to candidates who invest time and resources inattempting to clear through a selection. Both these considerations haveEa constitutional foundation going beyond service and administrative lawprinciples. The issue has travelled to the court for resolution and thepath ahead requires us to revisit and evolve the law on the subject.

3. This batch of twelve appeals arises from a judgment of a DivisionBench of the High Court of Delhi dated 13 January 2020. Two petitionsFunder Article 226 of the Constitution were instituted by the DelhiSubordinate Services Selection Board (“DSSSB”) in order to questionthe legality of the orders of the Tribunal dated 1 February 2017 and 27February 2017. The Tribunal annulled the decision of the Government ofthe National Capital Territory of Delhi (“GNCTD”) to cancel the

recruitment process conducted for appointments to the post of HeadGClerk [(Grade 2) (DASS)] in the GNCTD. As a consequence, the Tribunaldirected the DSSSB to conclude the selection process for which theTier-I and Tier-II examinations had been conducted. The proceedingsbefore the Tribunal in two OAs[1] were instituted by a total of six applicants,three in each of the OAs. The Tribunal’s decision entails that the benefitH1 OA No. 3941 of 2015 and OA No.1578 of 2016

SACHIN KUMAR v. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTIONBOARD (DSSSB) [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J]

of its order setting aside the recruitment process would enure not only tothe six applicants who had moved it but to others as well though theyhad not challenged the cancellation of the recruitment process. The HighCourt by its judgment held that

(i) The orders of the Tribunal dated 1 February 2017 and 27February 2017 setting aside the cancellation of therecruitment process were in accord with the legal position;

(ii) The relief would stand confined to the six applicants whohad moved the Tribunal; and

(iii) Each of the six applicants, who were Respondents beforethe High Court would need to take the Tier-II examinationafresh within a stipulated period and the appointment processwould be taken to its logical conclusion for them.

4. The batch of SLPs which arises from the judgment of the HighCourt can, for convenience of exposition, be bifurcated into threecategories :

(i) GNCTD and DSSSB challenged the decision of the HighCourt affirming the orders of the Tribunal which had setaside the annulment of the recruitment process;

(ii) The six candidates who succeeded before the Tribunal andthe High Court in regard to the setting aside of the decisionto cancel the recruitment process are aggrieved by thedirection of the High Court requiring them to appear in theTier-II examination afresh; and

(iii) Candidates who had not challenged the annulment of therecruitment process before the Tribunal but were thebeneficiaries of the decision of the Tribunal to set aside thecancellation of the recruitment process are aggrieved bythe grant of relief by the High Court only to the sixcandidates who had moved OAs before the Tribunal.

5. Category (iii) noted above consists in turn of the following :

(i) persons whose intervention applications before the HighCourt were dismissed during the pendency of theproceedings inter alia by an order dated 15 December 2017;and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(ii)persons who had neither moved the Tribunal in the firstinstance nor had attempted intervention in the High Courtbut have filed Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 ofthe Constitution before this Court.

6. Having set out the broad contours of the path which the litigationBhas followed, it is necessary now to turn to the specifics.

B Factual background

7. On 26 December 2009, DSSSB issued an advertisement[2] invitingapplications for various posts among them being the post of [(Grade 2(DASS)]/Head Clerk (post code 90/09) for a total of 231 vacancies inCServices Department – II, GNCTD. 62,056 applications were received,and 61,179 were found eligible. The scheme of the examination comprisedof :

(i) Tier-I – a preliminary examination for shortlisting candidatesfor the main examination. This was an objective type testDcarrying 200 marks and for a duration of 2.5 hours; and

(ii) Tier-II – the main examination which was of a descriptivetype carrying 200 marks for a duration of 2.5 hours.

8. The Tier-I examination was conducted by DSSSB on 29 June2014. 8,224 candidates appeared at the Tier-I examination. Notably 4,712Ecandidates (approximately 55 per cent) were drawn from 22 pin codesof Delhi as against a total of 609 pin codes.

9. Between 14 October 2014 and 27 March 2015, complaints werereceived by the DSSSB as to serious irregularities in the conduct ofTier-I examination alleging:F

(i) leakage of question papers;

(ii) mass cheating;

(iii) allotment of common examination centres and rooms tomembers of the same family; and G(iv)impersonation of candidates.

10. The results of the Tier-I examination were declared on 21October 2014 and 2,415 candidates were shortlisted. The Tier-IIexamination was conducted on 29 March 2015 and its results weredeclared on 15 July 2015.H2 Advertisement No.004/2009

First Committee

11. Between 30 July 2015 and 1 February 2016, several complaintswere received in regard to alleged irregularities in the conduct of boththe Tier-I and Tier-II examinations. The Deputy Chief Minister of Delhiconstituted a committee on 22 August 2015 consisting of the Director(Vigilance) and District Magistrate (East) to enquire into the complaintsregarding irregularities in the conduct of the Tier-I and Tier-IIexaminations. The Committee, in its report dated 10 September 2015and 18 September 2015, arrived at the prima facie conclusion that therewere serious irregularities, including cheating and impersonation both inthe course of the Tier-I screening examination and Tier-II mainexamination. The Committee opined that the examination should havebeen cancelled at the stage of declaring the Tier-I result and the mattershould be referred to the Economic Offences Wing / Crime Branch ofDelhi Police for a thorough investigation. The salient findings of theCommittee are extracted below:

“35. On preliminary investigation of the case, based on somedocuments/information received from DSSSB and inputs givenby the complainant, prima facie it appears that huge irregularitieshave been committed in Tier-I and Tier-II Examination.Randomization is a basis component of any competitive examinationfor selecting suitable candidates. However, in the instant casewhether randomization of the application in Tier-I &Tier-II havebeen done or not, the outcome of basic investigation is that somany cases emerged .where two or more members of a singlefamily sat in the examination one after the other (consecutively)and they are also coming under zone of probable selection, thisdefeat [defeats] purpose of fair practice of recruitment procedure.

36. Besides, the complainant in their complaint time and againlevelled allegation that majority of candidates coming under zoneof selection appears having definite geographical reason [region].This has been verified from the available documents provided byDSSSB and found prima facie substantiated.

37. Occurrence of similar malpractices in the previous examsconducted by DSSSB may also not be ruled out.

38. The documents required in the matter are of voluminous natureand each document needs full attention and thorough investigation A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aaccordingly for which huge man-powers [man-power] is required.The thorough investigation will require approaching doubtfulcandidates, their interrogation, trapping of culprits, linking variousclues etc. Only CBI or Crime branch can deal with this [these]kind of cases as they have proper manpower, investigationtechniques, police powers for investigation and enormousBexperience in cracking such cases.”

Based on the preliminary findings of the first Committee, aquestionnaire was prepared by the Directorate of Vigilance and wasaddressed to the Chairperson of DSSSB on 24 September 2015 for hiscomments. The questions which were posed included the following:C“(i) What was the reason for the delay of nearly 5 years in holdingthe Tier-I Exam?

(ii) Was there scrutiny of the applications to ascertain the eligibilityof candidates in terms of the Recruitment Rules (‘RRs’)? WhoDwere the Officers/officials engaged in that exercise’?

(iii) Since a number of candidates did not have easy access tointernet facility, were admit cards sent to all eligible candidatesthrough speed post as well? Who was the officer who had takenthe decision to inform the candidates by e-mail/online?

E(iv) Was there a randomization of roll numbers of candidates forthe Tier-I and Tier-II exams and if not, what were the reasons forthe same? Who were the officers/officials responsible for thefailure to conduct randomization?

(v) What are the names and designations of officers responsibleFfor allocation of exam centres to candidates and for deploymentof Chief Invigilators, Observers and Assistant Observers at suchexam centres? The names of the offices involved in the processof finalising the papers. What was the procedure /policy for settingpapers and who was the competentauthority for that purpose?

G(vi) What is the procedure/policy for selecting printing processfor printing the question papers? What are the names of the officersinvolved in its supervision’?

(vii) What is the procedure for getting printed papers in ‘thepremises and in whose custody they remained?

H

SACHIN KUMAR v. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTIONBOARD (DSSSB) [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J]

(viii) What is the action taken by the DSSSB on the complaints inrelation to the conduct of Tier-I exam, on the allegations ofimpersonation, cheating and leakage of exam papers prior toconducting the Tier-II exam? What action was taken against thespecific officials who were named in complaints?

(ix) Whether there was any mal-functioning of the jammer andvideography at the Shakarpur Exam Centre and what action wastaken by the DSSSB against such officials?”

12. On 1 October 2015, DSSSB provided its comments stating that

(i) No record was available to explain why the examinationfor which an advertisement was issued in 2009 was notconducted until 2014. By 2013 over 25,000 vacancies hadto be filled and DSSSB has been conducting regularexaminations to clear the backlog;

(ii) On 1 June 2013, a meeting was convened by DSSSB todiscuss sending physical admit cards by post. Following theexample of UPSC and the Railway Board, a decision wastaken to issue e-admit cards which could be downloadedby candidates from anywhere and wide publicity was givenof the procedure in the newspaper apart from the DSSSBwebsite. The recourse to e-admit cards was taken becauseof the considerable delay since the issuance of theadvertisement in 2009, having regard to the fact that therecould be changes of addresses, postal delays and difficultiesin issuing duplicate cards in the event of loss or damage;

(iii) For the Tier-II examination, randomisation was done. Before28 June 2015, no software was available for randomisation.However, by way of abundant precaution, in view of thecomplaints which had been received, a manual reshufflingof the sitting arrangements for candidates fetching thehighest marks was done so as to ensure the maintenanceof adequate distance. The roll numbers of candidates againstwhom some complaints were received were highlighted inthe sitting plan for all invigilators. Moreover, the questionpapers were printed in four series as a result of whichcandidates sitting in proximity would not necessarily have A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

the same question paper. There was, in any event, a naturalrandomization on account of absentees and failedcandidates; A

(iv) There was no substance in the allegation of impersonationsince invigilators at the examination centres were requiredBto determine the identity of each candidate on the basis ofdetails, photographs in the attendance sheet and admit cardof each candidate;

(v) There was no mal-functioning of the jammers andvideography; and C

(vi) DSSSB did not carry out any scrutiny of the eligibility ofcandidates at the initial stage and this was done only forcandidates who were able to finally get through the selectionprocedure.

13. The response to the questionnaire was placed before the firstDCommittee which submitted a detailed report dated 12 October 2015.The principal findings in the report of the Committee were:

(i) There was no justification for the delay of five years inconducting the Tier-I examination after the issuance of theadvertisement; E

(ii) The advertisement did not stipulate that admit cards wouldbe issued in the electronic form. Failure to send admit cardsthrough speed post to each of the applicants resulted in asharp decline in the number of candidates who appearedfor the Tier-I examination; F

(iii) DSSSB had either not commented upon or had given vagueresponses to the allegations of serious irregularities. Thisincluded instance of candidates who had scored above 150marks out of a total of 200 marks in the Tier-I examinationbut received few marks in the Tier-II objective paper.

G

(iv) If randomisation had indeed taken place in the Tier-IIexamination, this did not explain how members of the samefamily or close relatives sat in the same examination room;

(v) The allegations of complaints regarding impersonation andthe connivance of middle-men and government staff togetherH

with the candidates appeared to be correct. For 12candidates, the prima facie findings of impersonation onaccount of the failure of their signatures on the admit cardsto match the signatures in the attendance sheets appearedto be correct; and

(vi) By allowing candidates to appear without a scrutiny ofqualifications, DSSSB had failed to carry out a properscrutiny, thereby allowing unfit candidates to obtain unduebenefits.

14. On 19 October 2015, the Secretary (Vigilance) submitted hisopinion pointing out the irregularities which were committed by DSSSBin the conduct of the examination. The relevant extract from the opinionreads as follows:

“64. [...] i) There is a huge difference between number ofapplications received i.e. 62056 and number of candidatesappeared in Tier-I exam i.e. 8224, indicating that proper informationregarding exam was not given to the candidates. This has alsobeen supported by the fact that even after the in-ordinate delay ofabout 5 years, the admit cards were not sent to all eligiblecandidates through speed post. The DSSSB issued admit cardsthrough electronic mode which was not mentioned in theadvertisement for the post. Furthermore, a number of candidates,particularly residing in small towns and villages, might not haveeasy access to internet facility.

ii) Some candidates got marks above 150 in Tier-I exam out of200 marks but got very few marks, even zero, in Tier-II exam.

iii) Although the Board has claimed that randomization ofcandidates was done, in a number of cases the family members/close relatives sat in the same rooms one after another, in somecases in both Tier-I and Tier-II exams, which does not appear tobe plausible.

iv) In some cases, the signatures of candidates on admit cardsand attendance sheets do not match. Besides it, in some cases,blurred/manipulated thumb impressions were obtained in theattendance sheets. This shows that impersonation in the examcannot be ruled out.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Av) The Board also allowed some candidates, not having theprescribed essential qualification, to appear in the exam.

65. Keeping in view the above irregularities, prima-facie, the entireprocess for recruitment for the post of Grade-II(DASS) appearsto be vitiated. Hon’ble Dy. Chief Minister may take a view in theBmatter.”

15. The report of the Committee was placed by the Secretary(Vigilance) before the Deputy Chief Minister on 19 October 2015following which on 20 October 2015 comments were called from theDSSSB. By its letter dated 9 November 2015, DSSSB informed theCoffice of the Deputy Chief Minister that consequent to a special Boardmeeting on 5 November 2015, a summary of comments was approved,reading thus:

“20. By its letter dated 9th November, 2015, DSSSB informed theoffice of the Deputy CM that a special board meeting of the DSSSBhad been held on 5[th] November, 2015. Enclosed with the saidDletter was a summary of the comments of the DSSSB, whichwere approved in the special board meeting. The comments areas under:

(i) The delay was due to certain administrative constrains[constraints] as highlighted in the correspondence with the ServicesEdepartment as well as due to accumulation of huge pendencyduring this period.

(ii) The decision was taken in the Board meeting in line of similarpractices by most major recruiting bodies in view of massiveadministrative issues arising out of previous system of physicalFadmit cards.

(iii) Difference in score of different exams is quite plausible inview of different level of difficulty, gap between the exams andexam day preparation of the candidate. Similar phenomenon withother examining bodies like SSC is highlighted.

G(iv) No case of any deliberate attempt to impede the extra ordinarymeasures like videography and mobile jammers is made out.

(v) Answer keys are not available in the Board till the completionof exam process. It would be absurd to question the integrity ofsenior officers of the Delhi govt. who are deployed as Flying squadHmembers.

(vi) Clarification regarding eligibility of various educationalqualifications was provided by the Services department whichalso happens to be the user department in this case.

(vii) Shri Praveen Malik, presented with genuine looking admitcard at the centre which did not match with the records present.However, as detailed verification was not possible at the instant,he was allowed with an undertaking to the effect. After hiscandidature was rejected by the Board, he appeared for Tier- IIexam through a court order, the matter is sub judice.

(viii) The Board had already decided to verify the hand writing,signatures and thumb impression of all the candidates in theconsideration zone and had completed the proceedings for 12candidates against whom specific complaint was received.”

Consequent on the above exercise, the Deputy Chief Ministerissued the following order on 23/28 December 2015:

“On the basis of recommendations of the DSSSB on the allegedirregularities in the exam conducted for the post of Grade-IIDASS) post code 90/09, it is hereby directed that all the candidateswho are in consideration zone may be scrutinized by DSSSB tocheck impersonation before the decision of the Board regardingdeclaration of the result. The candidates, in the zone ofconsideration, who fail to attend the process of verification ofimpressions, should be disqualified from this exam.

FIR should be lodged against any imperson4tor [impersonator]found during this exercise. Disciplinary proceedings may beinitiated against concerned Superintendents of the ExaminationCentres who are responsible to ensure that the invigilators obtainthe thumb impression of the candidates in the respective attendancesheets.

DSSSB shall complete this exercise within a month.”

Second Committee

16. On 14 January 2016, a committee consisting of four memberswas constituted by DSSSB “to check the credentials of all the candidatesfalling in the zone of consideration in the merit list, for Gr.II/DASS (postcode 90/09) for checking of the candidate and the authenticity of his/hercandidature”.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A17. Between 1 February and 12 February 2016 and on 26 February2016, a team of DSSSB officers along with officers of the ForensicScience Laboratory (FSL) and Department of Vigilance (DoV) carriedout the process of verification in order to check impersonation of 290candidates falling in the zone of consideration. An agency dealing withthe biometric identification was also involved in the process for checkingBthe thumb-impressions of the candidates. The process of verificationinvolved:

“1 Proof of Identity

2 Two recent passport size photographsC3 DOB Proof.

4 Original documents/certificate/marksheets regarding theirqualification.

5 Caste/sports certificates if any.”

DThe Committee noted that:

“During the process of verification out of the 290 candidates calledas per schedule from 1st February to 12th February only 270candidates remained present. The remaining 20 candidates weregiven another opportunity to remain present on 26th February outEof which on [sic only] 11 candidates remained present. Besidesservice of notices the notice of calling remaining 20 candidateswas also uploaded on the website and published in prominentnewspapers.”

The observations of the Committee are as follows:F

“1 Document verification of the present candidates was completedby the identified DSSSB officials along with the VigilanceDepartment officials. No irregularity was found in the documentsof the 281 present candidates.

2 In regard to 02 candidates (Sh Dinesh Kumar Roll No 90003227GSh Kishan Kumar Roll No 900057546) all the 6 available thumbimpression records with DSSSB were found unfit for match withthe live prints captured at the time of verification (Annexure VII).

3 For 01 candidates (Sh Yogesh Kumar Roll No 90030785) thelive print did not match with the Tier II records but was foundHmatching with Tier I records and application form (Annexure VIII).

In the FSL reports suspicious [sic suspicions] in writing & signatureare observed.

4 During verification it was disclosed by 02 candidates (Sh DeepakMann Roll No 90038154 and Sh Amit Khatri Roll No 90041220)that they had been imprisoned in the past for their involvement inthe paper leak/cheating cases in the UPSC exam and SSC examrespectively. Sh Deepak Mann was employed in Delhi Police till2010 as Sub Inspector subsequently he resigned. Sh Amit Khatriis employed in Income Tax Department at Mumbai and is currentlyunder suspension.

5 While examining the records of all the 09 absentee candidates itwas noticed that Shri Subhash Singh (Roll No 90010887) beingearlier called for similar process on 14 August 2015 has ahandwritten passage on the FSL experts found it doubtful andwish to re-examine the sample in greater details. The thumbimpression were found unfit for match.

6 In the Biometric verification report of Shri Vikas (Roll No90056139) it is mentioned that Application form fingerprint doesnot match with Tier I and Tier II fingerprints. Tier I and Tier IIfingerprint does not match with each other. And the report ofanother candidate Shri Subhash Singh (Roll No 90010887) Noopinion can be given as Tier I and Tier II fingerprints are unfit formatching. Only fingerprint on application form is partially matchablebut no reference fingerprint is available for matching. Both thecandidates were absent for verification.

7 Photograph of a candidate Sh Praveen Dabas (Roll No90020057) was not available in the application form. AttendanceSheet of Tier I and Tier II.

8 Significant numbers of candidates were found already workingin various Govt. departments like Delhi Police Central Govt.ministries MCD etc.”

18. Before the Department could conclude its on-going verificationprocess, FIR 05/2016 dated 18 January 2016 was registered at PS- AntiCorruption Branch, Delhi under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.A team of ACB officers seized the original file on 19 February 2016.Certified copies of the dossiers comprising of application forms, OMR

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Asheets of Tier-I and Tier-II, attendance sheets of Tier-I and Tier-II inrespect of 290 candidates under consideration were subsequently seizedon 26 February 2016. The report of the second Committee was placedbefore the Deputy Chief Minister. In his note dated 2 March 2016, theDeputy Chief Minister recorded thus:

B“74 This has reference to the examination conducted for the postof Gr II (DASS) post code 90/09 by DSSSB. Consequent uponseveral complaints received by the Government about theirregularities in the examination process the matter was referredto the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct an inquiry into theallegations.C

75 On receipt of interim report of the Directorate of Vigilance Idirected DSSSB to check alleged cases of impersonation beforeany decision is taken by the Board regarding declaration [sic] istaken by the Board regarding declaration of the result. I alsodirected that the candidates in the zone of consideration who failedDto attend the process of verification of impersonation should bedisqualified from this examination and FIR should be lodgedagainst any impersonator found during the said exercise byDSSSB.

76 I further directed DSSSB to initiate disciplinary proceedingsEagainst concerned Superintendents of the Examination Centreswho were responsible for ensuring that the invigilators obtainedthe thumb impression of the candidates in the respective attendancesheets. The verification process was to be carried out by DSSSBunder the overall supervision of the Directorate of Vigilance.

F

77 It has been reported by DSSSB that out of 2 90 candidates inthe zone of consideration, 9 candidates did not report for verificationand serious lacuana [lacunae] were found against 7 candidateswhich inter alia include thumb impression unfit for match with thelive prints; suspicious [suspicions] in writing and signature;Gunmatched thumb impression of candidates in Tier I and Tier IIexam; photograph of a candidate not available in the applicationform and police records of two candidates in similar cases.

78 It is pertinent to note that verification has been carried out onlyin respect of candidates who are in the zone of consideration and H

the report of Directorate of Vigilance and DSSSB clearly indicatethat the examination process has been vitiated. There are farserious complaints about the conduct of Tier I examination for thesame post code.

A

79 The Government has zero tolerance towards corruption andofficials who may join Government through improper examinationare just not acceptable. Therefore it is recommended to cancelthe examination conducted by DSSSB for the post code 90/09and hold the examination afresh. In the interest of justice all theaffected candidates who are found eligible to take part in theabove examination may be provided suitable age relaxation forthe new examination.

B

C

80 May like to approve.”

19. Following the recommendation of the Deputy Chief Minister,a notification was issued on 15 March 2016 for the cancellation of theselection process.

D

C Proceedings before the Tribunal

20. Initially, OA 3941/2015 was filed before the Tribunal by threecandidates aggrieved by the failure of DSSSB and GNCTD to act ontheir representation dated 3 September, 2015. In their representation,these candidates had contended that allegations as to irregularities weremade by unsuccessful candidates hoping to get another chance to writethe examination. OA 1587/2016 was filed by three other candidatessubsequent to the issuance of the order of cancellation of the recruitmentprocess dated 15 March 2016.

E

21. The Tribunal by its decision dated 1 February 2017, allowedOA 3941/2015. The principal findings of the Tribunal were thus:

F

(i) The cancellation of the selection process should only be asa matter of last resort and not on the basis of vagueallegations made by unsuccessful candidates; G

(ii) An effort should be made to separate the tainted from theuntainted candidates and the selection process should becancelled only where it is impossible to do so;

(iii) In order to vitiate the entire process, the irregularities shouldbe of such a nature as to make it impossible to segregatemeritorious candidates from the rest; andH

A(iv)The cancellation of the entire examination without carryingout such an exercise would be arbitrary and unjustified eventhough successful candidates do not have an indefeasibleright to be appointed.

22. On the above premises, the Tribunal observed that the secondBCommittee had examined the details of candidates who were likely tofigure in the merit list and found that 281 candidates “were free fromblame”. The status report by the ACB showed that the investigationwas confined to only such candidates whose conduct was found to besuspect by the second Committee. 281 candidates did not form a part ofthe ACB investigation and cancelling their candidature would be arbitraryCand unjustified. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the order dated 15March 2016 cancelling the selection process clarifying that theappointments to be offered to the successful candidates would be subjectto the ACB investigation. In its subsequent order dated 27 February2017, the Tribunal in OA 1578/2016 followed its earlier order and issuedDthe same direction.

D Proceedings before the Delhi High Court

23. The judgment of the Tribunal was questioned before the DelhiHigh Court in writ petitions instituted by DSSSB and GNCTD underEArticle 226 of the Constitution. During the pendency of the petitions,intervention applications were moved before the High Court by candidateswho had not instituted proceedings before the Tribunal. The candidatesseeking intervention before the High Court claimed to be successful inthe examination and submitted that they would be adversely affected ifthe High Court were to allow the petitions and upheld the cancellation ofFthe recruitment process as ordered on 15 March 2016. The High Courtdismissed the applications for intervention and one of its orders in thatregard dated 15 December 2017 reads as follows:

“CM Nos. 34652/2017 & 43985/2017 (by theinterventionist under Order I Rule 10 CPC)G1. The present applications have been filed by the applicantsseeking impleadment in the petition on the ground that they weredeclared as successful candidates in the examination held by thepetitioners in respect of advertisement No.004/2d09 for post codeNo.90/09.

H

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that under theimpugned judgment dated 01.02.2017 the OA filed by therespondents raising a grievance that after completion of the entireexercise for filling up the subject post, the DSSSB had not issuedthe select list as per the merit of the examination and had insteadcancelled the entire selection process, was allowed by the Tribunal.While allowing the said OA, the Tribunal had quashed the orderdated 15.03.2016 passed by the petitioners herein cancelling theentire examination and had directed DSSSB to finalise the selectionprocess for Grade-II (DASS), post code 90/09 on the basis of thetier-I and tier-II examinations as held on 29.06.2014 and29.03.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants state that since they weresuccessful in the aforesaid examination, any decision in the presentcase challenging the direction to finalise the selection processpertaining to the aforesaid examination, is likely to affect themadversely.

4. In our view, there is no justification for impleading the applicantsin the present petition particularly when, the cause of action, ifany, had accrued in their favour on 15.03.2016, when thepetitioners/DSSSB had proceeded to cancel the entire examination,which action was admittedly, never challenged by them by filing apetition. Nor had they sought impleadment in the OA filed by therespondents.

5. In such circumstances, we do not see any reason to allow thepresent applications which are dismissed as devoid of merits.”

24. By its judgment dated 13 January 2020, the Division Benchobserved that:

(i) The 286 vacancies for which the advisement in questionwas issued remain unfilled and there were vacancies againstwhich the six candidates who had moved the Tribunal forappointment could be accommodated;

(ii) The scope of the orders of the Tribunal would be confinedto the six applicants before it and the scope of theproceedings would not extend beyond them; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(iii)In the present case, through a detailed enquiry which wasconducted by the two committees, it had been possible todetermine that at least in respect of 281 candidates thatthere was no evidence of the use of unfair means;

(iv) An elaborate enquiry had been undertaken by GNCTD andBDSSSB as a consequence of which there was no difficultyin separating the untainted candidates, namely the sixapplicants before the Tribunal, from the tainted ones; and

(v) DSSSB and GNCTD were unable to demonstrate that anyof the six applicants who had moved the Tribunal hadCindulged in malpractices.

25. In view of the above premises, the High Court:

(i) affirmed the decision of the Tribunal dated 1 February 2017as being consistent with the precedents of this Court;

(ii) held that there was no reason to disturb the orders of theDTribunal dated 1 February 2017 and 27 February 2017,though confined to the six candidates who had moved theTribunal; and

(iv) held that each of the said six candidates who wererespondents before the High Court, would have to appearEat the Tier-II examination to be conducted by DSSSB withintwo months and those among them who qualified would beissued letters of appointment subject to verification ofdocuments. The directions of the High Court were made“subject to any subsequent development in the form of theon-going investigation by the ACB”.FE Submissions

26. Ms Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General urgedthe following submissions on behalf of the DSSSB and GNCTD:

(i) The entire recruitment process was found to be tainted byGfraud as a consequence of which it became impossible todisentangle the tainted from the untainted candidates. Thisresulted ultimately in the cancellation of the entire processas it was found to be beyond redemption;

(ii) Subsequent to the cancellation of the recruitment process,many of the candidates comprised in the larger group ofH

SACHIN KUMAR v. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTIONBOARD (DSSSB) [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J]

281 participated in the subsequent recruitment processes,appearing for the examinations held in 2017 and 2020:

A

·In the 2017 recruitment examination, 133 out of 281candidates participated out of which 13 wereselected.

B

·In the recruitment process for 2020, 87 out of 281persons participated of which 3 were short-listed;

(iii) An extensive process was carried out in the present caseinvolving the (a)Initial report of the first Committee; C

(b) The report of the first Committee; and

(c) The report of the second Committee.

(iv) The above exercise resulted in findings demonstrating thatthe recruitment process stood entirely vitiated for theDfollowing reasons:

(a) Admit cards were not provided to all the applicantsas a result of which only 8,000 candidates appearedfor the Tier-I examination from amongst 62,000applications; E

(b) The delay of five years between the date of theadvertisement and the holding of the Tier-Iexamination coupled with the failure to ensure thedue distribution of admit cards to all the applicantsresulted in a situation where equal access was deniedFto all prospective candidates;

(c) The geographical coverage of candidates has beenfound to be extremely limited: out of all the 8,224candidates who appeared in the Tier-I examination,4,712 candidates representing approximately 55 percent were confined to only 22 pin codes from Delhias against a total of 609 pin codes from whichcandidates had applied; G

(d) The Tier-I examination results indicated that therewere candidates who secured extremely high marksbut who had either failed to appear or received low H

marks in the ensuing Tier-II examination. There is areasonable basis to presume that these candidateswere not bona fide and the effort had been to ensurethat the field of competition was substantiallynarrowed for those who would ultimately appear andclear the Tier-II examination; A

B

(e) The process of randomisation was manipulated as aresult of which persons belonging to the same familyor close relatives were assigned the same examinationcentre and sat for the Tier-I examination in the sameexamination room; C

(f) The education qualifications of the candidates werenot verified; and (g)There were serious doubts in regard to whether thearrangements for installing jammers and for video-graphing the process were at all functional.

D

(v) The first Committee in its report came to the conclusionthat there was a much larger impersonation;

(vi) The decision which was taken by the Deputy Chief Ministerafter the receipt of the report of the first Committee on 23EDecember 2015 to constitute a Committee for verifying theimpersonation amongst candidates who were falling in thezone of selection did not amount to a closure of the findingswhich were arrived at by the first Committee on broaderissues pertaining to the sanctity of the process. The secondFCommittee had a limited mandate of examining whetherany of the candidates who were in the zone of selectionafter the Tier-II examination were guilty of impersonation.Just because the second Committee exonerated a largenumber of candidates under its consideration forimpersonation cannot be construed as them being given aGclean chit overall. After the report of the second Committee,a final decision was still to be taken when it was concludedultimately that in view of the large- scale fraud, the entireprocess should be scrapped;

(vii) At the point of time when the second Committee wasHappointed for the purpose of verifying impersonation amongst candidates in the zone of selection, the governmenthad not yet finally applied its mind to the report of the firstCommittee. Ultimately when the Government applied itsmind to the report of the first Committee and the report ofthe Director (Vigilance), a decision was taken to cancelthe entire process. This was legitimate because as on 23December 2015, no final decision had been taken on thereport of the first Committee; A

B

(viii) All the 281 candidates who were verified for impersonationby the second Committee cannot be regarded as untainted;

(ix) Many of them may well be untainted but all the other factorshave to be read cumulatively. When the examination processhas been deprived of its sanctity it was justifiably decidedto cancel it in its entirety. This decision was consistent withprecedents of this Court which are an authority for theproposition that, when the examination process is beset withsystemic flaws, the process as a whole stands vitiated, andit would be wrong to insist that each individual instance ofwrongdoing be challenged and addressed.

C

D

(x) In other words, the fact that some amongst the candidatesmay be untainted would not negate the decision of theGovernment to scrap the process when the entireEexamination has been found to suffer from seriousirregularities; and

(xi) In any event, having regard to the fact that the ultimatedecision of the Deputy Chief Minister envisaged the grantof age relaxation, all the candidates were free to appear inthe subsequent recruitment process. As a matter of fact, alarge number of them have appeared in subsequentexaminations. Consequently the grant of relief by theTribunal was clearly not justified. The Tribunal failed toapply its mind to the deficiencies which were noticed in theTier-I examination, and this error has affected the judgmentof the High Court as well.

F

G

27. Mr P S Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel led the submissionson behalf of the candidates. The following submissions have been urged:

(i) The enquiry which was initiated by DSSSB was on thebasis of complaints, which in all probability were at the behest H

of disgruntled candidates who had not succeeded in theexaminations; A

(ii) The record would indicate that there was no investigationinto the authenticity of the complaints; and

(iii) The recruitment process had been cancelled on the basisBof surmises.

28. Elaborating on his submissions, Mr Patwalia urged that on 9November 2015 DSSSB submitted a comprehensive and detailed notecontaining its comments to the Deputy Chief Minister. The note wassigned and endorsed by three IAS Officers who formed a board, apartCfrom whom there were ten other officers. The submission is that onevery aspect which was raised in the first and the second enquirycommittee reports, a detailed clarification was submitted by DSSSB withsupporting reasons establishing that there was no irregularity in theconduct of the examinations. In particular, the following features wereDemphasized by Mr Patwalia:

(i) DSSSB clarified that on 5 June 2013, it had resolved thatadmit cards for the recruitment examinations conducted byit would be issued in the electronic form. In the presentcase, since the advertisement had been issued in 2009, thereEwould have been changes in the addresses of the applicants.The decision was advertised in six newspapers, hencecandidates were aware of the fact that admit cards wouldbe provided in the electronic form and as a matter of factthe notification for the Tier-I examination containedinformation on e- Admit Cards. No candidate complainedFabout the switch from hard copy admit cards to soft copyones. If this were a genuine concern, grievances wouldhave been appropriately raised;

(ii) The randomization could not be adopted at the relevant timedue to the absence of software. But in the course of theGexaminations sufficient measures were taken to ensure thatunfair means would not be adopted. The question paperswere printed in four series of booklets which provided anadequate guarantee against the use of unfair means bycandidates who were sitting in close proximity. Alterationof sitting arrangements was made;H

(iii) No examination is completely taint-free. Complaints as toAthe process were made by anonymous sources which doesnot inspire confidence. On the suspicious geographicconcentration of successful candidates, the same thing couldbe said about examinations such as the UPSC examination.This cannot be a valid basis to call the robustness of theBprocess into question; and

(iv) Adequate provisions were made for conducting videography.

29. In the above backdrop, it has been submitted that based onthe recommendations of DSSSB, the Deputy Chief Minister took adecision on 23 December 2015 to constitute a committee for verifyingwhether candidates in the zone of selection were guilty of impersonation.This in fact was the course of action which was taken by the DeputyChief Minister because DSSSB has itself clarified in its comments thatit was in the process of conducting a verification on the issue ofimpersonation. Eventually, after carrying out a detailed exercise, thereport of the second Committee found that 281 candidates were free oftaint. Once, the Deputy Chief Minister had, upon receiving the commentsof DSSSB, confined the enquiry to whether there was any impersonationby candidates within the zone of selection, this was the only issue whichremained to be resolved. Upon the report of the second Committee, itwas found that 281 candidates were free of taint. Adverting to the reasonsadduced by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court, it washighlighted that C

D

E

(i) The ACB investigation was confined to only thosecandidates whose conduct was suspected; F

(ii) The status report of the ACB indicated that 281 candidatesdid not form part of the investigation; and

(iii) As a result of the exercise conducted by the secondCommittee, it was possible to identify and separate taintedfrom untainted candidates.

G

30. In the above backdrop, Mr PS Patwalia, learned SeniorCounsel urged that the decision of the Tribunal to set aside the cancellationof the selection process is eminently fair and proper. Moreover, it wasurged that the six candidates who had approached the Tribunal and towhom relief has been confined by the High Court need not be requiredto appear at the Tier-II examinations once the cancellation of the results H

Ahas been set aside. As regards candidates who had not moved the Tribunal,it was urged that the benefit of the order setting aside the cancellation ofthe recruitment process must enure to all candidates among the group of281 persons who have been found to be free of taint.

31. Mr Chandra Shekhar, learned Counsel appeared on behalf ofBthe candidates who had intervened before the High Court and whoseinterventions were rejected by the order dated 15 December 2017. MrRitin Rai, learned Senior Counsel elaborated upon the fact that DSSSBhad in its recommendation indicated that there was no systematic flawor irregularity in the recruitment process. The Deputy Chief Minister, itwas urged, had accepted the recommendations of DSSSB on 23CDecember 2015. Hence, once the issue of impersonation was investigatedand sorted out through the report of the second Committee, it becamepossible to segregate the tainted candidates from candidates against whomno taint was found. Learned Counsel submitted that even thosecandidates who had not moved the Tribunal should be entitled to theDbenefit of its decision. It was urged that since the Tribunal had set asidethe entire decision to cancel the recruitment process, there was nooccasion for the candidates to file writ petitions before the High Court.The common issue which arose both before the Tribunal and the HighCourt was in regard to the sanctity of the examination process. Once itwas found that the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations did not suffer fromEirregularity, all candidates forming a part of the 281 persons who havebeen verified by the report of the second Committee would be entitled tothe benefit of the order of the High Court, and the High Court erred inconfining the benefit of its order only to six candidates.

32. The rival submissions now would need to be analyzed.FF The position in law

33. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not re-invent thewheel. Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court havedealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examinationcan stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whetherGthe irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level soas to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which borderupon or cross-over into the domain of fraud as a result of which thecredibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes oneend of the spectrum where the authority conducting the examination orconvening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a resultHof supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision alongthose lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise intoindividual acts involving the use of mal-practices or unfair means. Wherea recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it maybe difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in theprocess. Large scale irregularities including those which have the effectof denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates aresuggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process.At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participantsin the process who appear at the examination or selection test are guiltyof irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregatepersons who are guilty of wrong-doing from others who have adheredto the rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case,those who are innocent of wrong-doing should not pay a price for thosewho are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregatingthe wrong-doers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowedto pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion.This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principleof service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty bywhich public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair andreasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equalityof opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fairand reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 aswell. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as aconsequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire processbecomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregatepersons who have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them fortheir wrong-doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and thewrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of thecancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 becauseunequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a publicbody must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire processof selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject tojudicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authoritymust have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance withlaw which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process. Nowit is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes appropriate toadvert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field.

AB

C

DEF

G

H

A34. Over four decades ago, in Bihar School Examination Boardv. Subhas Chandra Sinha & Others[3] , a three judge Bench of thisCourt dealt with a case involving a challenge to the decision to cancelthe annual secondary school examination in relation to a particular centrein a district in Bihar. The irregularities at the centre were summarised inthe following extracts contained in the judgment of this Court:B

“5. The Tabulators of the Hanswadih Centre reported that thepercentage of successful examinees was as high as 80% whereasthe average at the Arrah, Dalippur Centre was only 50%. Theywere therefore asked to prepare percentage subject-wise. All theTabulators submitted these percentages. The matter was referredCto the Unfair Means Committee of the Board. The Committee inits turn asked the Moderators to look into all the answer bookswhere the percentage was 80% or more. They reported unfairmeans on a mass scale. The Chairman then passed an order onAugust 30, 1969 cancelling the examination in all subjects at theDHanswadih Centre allowing the examinees to re-appear at theSupplementary Examination in September, 1969 without paymentof fresh fees. The Head Masters of the three schools concernedwere also informed by registered letters. The action of theChairman was placed before the Board at its meeting on September9, 1969 and was approved. It was stated in the return that aEcomplaint was received from one Satnarain Singh of Jagdishpur,who, however, wrote a letter that he had made no such complaint.”

The High Court had quashed the action on the ground that theexaminees were not furnished with a show cause and the materials onwhich the Chairperson relied to pass the order were not disclosed. ChiefFJustice M Hidayatullah, speaking for the Court, noted that “the resultsspeak for themselves: whereas at other centres the average of successfulcandidates was 50 per cent, at one particular centre the percentage ofsuccessful candidates ranged from 70 per cent to 100 per cent in individualsubjects. In this context, the Court observed :G“13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is beingcharged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of allthe examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particularcentre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually withunfair means but to condemn the examination as ineffective forH3 (1970) 1 SCC 648

the purpose it was held. Must the Board give an opportunity to allthe candidates to represent their cases? We think not. It was notnecessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidatesif the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The Boardhad not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claimto defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption ofunfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would bewrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into thematter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which ofthe candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination asa whole had to go.”

The Court distinguished an earlier decision observing that:

The Court distinguished an earlier decision observing that:

“14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Guptacase [(1962) 3 Supp SCR 36] to which we referred earlier. Therethe examination results of three candidates were cancelled, andthis Court held that they should have received an opportunity ofexplaining their conduct. It was said that even if the inquiryinvolved a large number of persons, the Committee should frameproper regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not denythe opportunity. We do not think that that case has any application.Surely it was not intended that where the examination as awhole was vitiated, say by leakage of papers or bydestruction of some of the answer books or by discovery ofunfair means practiced on a vast scale that an inquiry wouldbe made giving a chance to every one appearing at thatexamination to have his say?What the Court intended tolay down was that if any particular person was to beproceeded against, he must have a proper chance to defendhimself and this did not obviate the necessity of giving anopportunity even though the number of persons proceededagainst was large. The Court was then not considering the rightof an examining body to cancel its own examination when it wassatisfied that the examination was not properly conducted or thatin the conduct of the examination the majority of the examineeshad not conducted themselves as they should have. To make suchdecisions depend upon a full-fledged judicial inquiry would holdup the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities andSchool Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Arequirements of natural justice and fair-play in cases where suchrequirement may be said to arise, we do not want that this Courtshould be understood as having stated that an inquiry with a rightto representation must always precede in every case, howeverdifferent. The universities are responsible for their standards andthe conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations isBthat the worth of every person is appraised without any assistancefrom an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of studentsreceive assistance and are managed to secure success in theneighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres aresuccessful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that theCUniversity or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannothold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni toplead and lead evidence etc., before the results are withheld orthe examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on whichit can be demonstrated that the university was right in itsconclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled thenDacademic standards require that the university’s appreciation ofthe problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court tosay that you should have examined all the candidates or eventheir representatives with a view to ascertaining whether theyhad received assistance or not. To do this would encourageEindiscipline if not also perjury.”

(emphasis supplied)

35. The decision of a three judge Bench of this Court in AnamicaMishra v. UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad[4 ](“AnamicaMishra”) involved recruitment to various posts in the educational servicesFof the State of Uttar Pradesh. There was a two stage recruitmentinvolving a written test and interview. It was found that after the writtenexamination, due to the improper feeding of data into the computer, somecandidates who had a better performance in the written examinationwere not called for interview and candidates who secured lesser marksGwere not only called for the interview but were finally selected. Theentire process was canceled by the Public Service Commission. Dealingwith the situation, this Court observed:

“4. We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the viewthat when no defect was pointed out in regard to the writtenH4 (1990) Supp. SCC 692

examination and the sole objection was confined to exclusion of agroup of successful candidates in the written examination fromthe interview, there was no justification for cancelling the writtenpart of the recruitment examination. On the other hand, the situationcould have been appropriately met by setting aside the recruitmentand asking for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates on thebasis of the written examination and select those who on the basisof the written and the freshly-held interview became eligible forselection.”

The case is therefore representative of a situation where thecancellation of the entire recruitment process was held not to be justifiedsince there was no systemic flaw in the written test, and the issue wasonly with regard to calling the candidates for the interview. The situationcould have been remedied by setting aside the selection made after theinterview stage and calling for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates.This is the ultimate direction which was issued by the Court.

36. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, MP v. Abhilash ShikshaPrasar Samiti[5], the High Court had interfered with the decision of theMP Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal to cancel the entire examination,following the report of the Naib Tehsildar who found that students hadbeen indulging in mass copying. The report of the Naib Tehsildar showedthat during the course of a visit to the centre, students were indulging incopying even before the question papers were distributed indicating thatthere was leakage of the question paper. The teachers had not objectedto the students entering the examination hall with books and copyingmaterial, indicating their complicity. Holding that the view of the HighCourt to set aside the cancellation was unsustainable, this Court held:

“2. […] In the face of this material, we do not see any justificationin the High Court having interfered with the decision taken by theBoard to treat the examination as cancelled. It is unfortunate thatthe student community resorts to such methods to succeed inexaminations and then some of them come forward to contendthat innocent students become victims of such misbehaviour oftheir companions. That cannot be helped. In such a situation theBoard is left with no alternative but to cancel the examination. Itis extremely difficult for the Board to identify the innocent studentsfrom those indulging in malpractices. One may feel sorry for the 5 (1998) 9 SCC 236

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ainnocent students but one has to appreciate the situation in whichthe Board was placed and the alternatives that were available toit so far as this examination was concerned. It had no alternativebut to cancel the results and we think, in the circumstances, theywere justified in doing so.”

B37. On the other hand, the judgment of a two judge Bench of thisCourt in Union of India v. Rajesh P U Puthuvalnikathu[6] involved asituation where a selection list consequent to a written examination,interview and physical fitness test for filling up the posts of constables inthe CBI was cancelled, due to allegations of favouritism on the part ofthe officers conducting the physical efficiency test and irregularities inCthe written examination. A challenge to the cancellation failed beforethe Tribunal upon which proceedings were initiated before the High Court.A Committee had been appointed by the Director, CBI, which uponmeticulous examination found that 31 candidates who were otherwiseineligible were included in the selection list and an equal number of eligibleDcandidates was ousted. In this backdrop the High Court found that therewas no justification to cancel the entire selection when the impact ofirregularities which had crept into the evaluation of merits could beidentified specifically and was found on verifying the records to haveresulted in 31 candidates being selected undeservedly. Upholding theview of the High Court, a two judge Bench of this Court held:E

“6. […] In the light of the above and in the absence of any specificor categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevantmaterial that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive nature,which could be really said to have undermined the very processitself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weedFout the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities,if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointmentto the other selected candidates whose selections were not foundto be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons.Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel theGentirety of the selections despite the firm and positive informationthat except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could befound with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard ofrelevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to thewinds the principle of proportionality in going farther than whatwas strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, thecompetent authority completely misdirected itself in taking suchan extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entireselections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on thefactual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature andgravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering suchdecision to be irrational”.

38. The decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State ofPunjab[7](“Inderpreet Singh Kahlon”),again of a two judge Bench,involved a case where it was alleged that the Chairperson of the PunjabPublic Service Commission (PSC) had got a large number of personsappointed on the basis of extraneous considerations between 1998 and2001. The State government cancelled the entire selection for recruitmentto the PSC (Executive Branch) and Allied Services 1998. Two ScrutinyCommittees were appointed and on the acceptance of their reports, theservices of those who were appointed on the basis of the selection madeby the Commission against vacancies for 1998 – 2000 came to beterminated. The Full Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitionsfiled by the selected candidates. In appeal before this court, Justice SBSinha enunciated in the course of his judgment the basis on which theservices of persons who had put in some years of service could bevalidly terminated:

“41. If the services of the appointees who had put in few years ofservice were terminated, compliance with three principles at thehands of the State was imperative viz. (1) to establish satisfactionin regard to the sufficiency of the materials collected so as toenable the State to arrive at its satisfaction that the selection processwas tainted; (2) to determine the question that the illegalitiescommitted go to the root of the matter which vitiate the entireselection process. Such satisfaction as also the sufficiency ofmaterials were required to be gathered by reason of a thoroughinvestigation in a fair and transparent manner; (3) whether thesufficient material present enabled the State to arrive at asatisfaction that the officers in majority have been found to bepart of the fraudulent purpose or the system itself was corrupt”.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A39. The Court noted that there were serious imputations againstthe Chairperson who was at the helm of affairs of the State PublicService Commission, and all decisions made during his tenure were yetto be set aside. The Court noted that:

“45. If fraud in the selection process was established, the StateBshould not have offered to hold a reselection. Seniority of thosewho were reselected ordinarily could not have been restored intheir favour. Such an offer was evidently made as the State wasnot sure about the involvement of a large number of employees.”

In the above backdrop, Justice SB Sinha drew a distinctionC“between a proven case of mass cheating for a board examination andan unproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of acivil servant is involved”.

40. The Court noted inter alia the decision in Anamica Mishra(supra) where tainted cases were separated from the non-tainted onesDand only where it is found impossible or highly improbable could “enmasse orders of termination have been issued”. Hence, in the view ofthis Court, an effort should have been made to segregate the taintedfrom the non-tainted candidates. The decided cases were broadlycategorized along the following lines:

E“52. …

(i) Cases where the “event” has been investigated:

(a) Union Territory of Chandigarh v. Dilbagh Singh [(1993)1 SCC 154 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 144 : (1993) 23 ATC 431] , SCC atparas 3 and 7.F(b) Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 165 :1994 SCC (L&S) 937 : (1994) 27 ATC 547] , SCC at paras 12, 15and 22.

(c) Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey [(1994) 5 SCC 663: 1994 SCC (L&S) 1235 : (1994) 28 ATC 165] , SCC at para 4.G(d) Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India [(1996) 10 SCC 742 :1997 SCC (L&S) 364] , SCC at para 4.

(e) Union of India v. O. Chakradhar [(2002) 3 SCC 146 : 2002SCC (L&S) 361] , SCC at para 9.

H

(f) B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 533 : 2002 SCC(L&S) 780] , SCC at para 4.

(ii) Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completedor a preliminary investigation was concluded:

(a) O. Chakradhar [(2002) 3 SCC 146 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 361]

(b) Krishan Yadav [(1994) 4 SCC 165 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 937 :(1994) 27 ATC 547]

(c) Hanuman Prasad [(1996) 10 SCC 742 : 1997 SCC (L&S)364]

(iii) Cases where the selection was made but appointmentwas not made:

(a) Dilbagh Singh [(1993) 1 SCC 154 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 144 :(1993) 23 ATC 431] , SCC at para 3.

(b) Pritpal Singh v. State of Haryana [(1994) 5 SCC 695 : 1994SCC (L&S) 1239 : (1994) 28 ATC 169]

(c) Anand Kumar Pandey [(1994) 5 SCC 663 : 1994 SCC (L&S)1235 : (1994) 28 ATC 165] , SCC at para 4.

(d) Hanuman Prasad [(1996) 10 SCC 742 : 1997 SCC (L&S)364]

(e) B. Ramanjini [(2002) 5 SCC 533 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 780] ,SCC at para 4.

(iv) Cases where the candidates were also ineligible andthe appointments were found to be contrary to law or rules:

(a) Krishan Yadav [(1994) 4 SCC 165 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 937 :(1994) 27 ATC 547]

(b) Pramod Lahudas Meshram v. State of Maharashtra [(1996)10 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1487] wherein appointments hadbeen made without following the selection procedure.

(c) O. Chakradhar [(2002) 3 SCC 146 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 361]wherein appointments had been made without typewriting testsand other procedures of selection having not been followed.”

(emphasis supplied)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A41. The decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) emphasizesthat when the services of employees are terminated on the ground thatthey may have aided and abetted corruption, the Court must satisfy itselfthat conditions for this exist. The Court while setting aside a selection“may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted thatthe entire selection process is liable to be cancelled.” Justice DalveerBBhandari, in a separate opinion, held that where the basis of a terminationof service involves serious allegations of corruption, it is imperative thatthe principles of natural justice must be fully complied with. The judgmentof Justice Bhandari emphasizes the “peculiar facts of the case which[..] were that some of the candidates had worked for about threeCyears and their services were terminated only on the basis of thecriminal investigation which was at the initial stage. Thetermination of their services, as a consequence of the cancellationof selection would not only prejudice their interest seriously butwould ruin their entire future career.” Both the judgments concurredDin issuing a direction to the High Court to consider the matters afreshand for the constitution of two committees – one related to the executiveofficers and the other related to judicial officers for segregating the taintedfrom the untainted officers. Consequential directions were also issuedfor compliance with the principles of natural justice.

E42. While analyzing the decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon(supra),it needs to be emphasized that it involved a situation wherepersons who had been appointed were sought to be terminated afterseveral years of service on the ground that their selection had beentainted by a fraud tracing its origin to the Chairperson of the PublicService Commission. It was, in other words, as Justice SB Sinha termedFit “an unproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment ofa civil servant is involved”. Justice Dalveer Bhandari also emphasized“the peculiar facts of this case” where persons who were appointed tothe services of the State were sought to be terminated on serious chargesof corruption involving a stigma. Having made this distinction, it mustGalso be noted that the judgment emphasizes that where it is possible tosegregate tainted from untainted candidates, the State must make aneffort to do so. Both the judges in fact observed that performing thistask was not impossible in that case. In that context the final directionsto do so were issued.

H

H

43. The sequel to the decision Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra)is another two judge Bench decision in Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab[8](“Joginder Pal”). After the decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon(supra),a Committee of three Judges of the High Court was constitutedto separate the tainted from non-tainted candidates. As this Court notedin Joginder Pal (supra),the Committee “could pinpoint those candidateswho had got selected were selected for oblique considerations”. In otherwords, candidates against whom no taint was found had been selectedon merits on their performance in the written examination and interview.Yet the Committee came to the conclusion that the entire process ofselection was a product of “a well- planned scheme of deception, forgeryand fraud” and, therefore, deserved to be set aside in its entirety. As aresult of this report, the original writ petitions were re-heard followingthe remand by this Court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon(supra) and werereferred to a five judge Bench. The writ petitions of the tainted candidateswere dismissed by the High Court but even in the case of non-taintedcandidates, it was held that the government was entitled to cancel theentire selection process, once it was found to be vitiated by deception,forgery and fraud. The conclusion of the High Court in regard to thetainted candidates was affirmed in the judgment of this Court in JoginderPal (supra), authored by Justice AK Sikri. The judgment of this Courtheld that by the directions which were issued in Inderpreet SinghKahlon (supra), an effort was required to be made to segregate thetainted from non-tainted candidates. Justice Sikri held that twoconclusions of the High Court were “antithetical”: once it was foundthat segregating the tainted from non-tainted candidates is possible andwas also achieved, the other conclusion (to set aside the entire process)was incompatible. The Court held that the issue of the entire selectionprocess being vitiated would have arisen only if the findings of theCommittee were that it was not possible to distinguish the cases of thetainted from the non-tainted candidates. The Court held that the reasonsfor holding the entire process should be vitiated were the same as thosewhich had been urged before the High Court earlier. Moreover, a crucialdevelopment which had taken place after the remand was that the Statehad come forward and indicated its willingness to take back candidateswho were not tainted and were selected on the basis of merit. In thisbackdrop, the order passed by the High Court was set aside.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

A44. The decision in Chairman All India Railway RecruitmentBoard v. K Shyam Kumar[9 ](“Chairman, Railway RecruitmentBoard”) involved a case where the Board had invited applications forGroup-D posts in the South Central Railway. As many as 10.02 lacapplications were received of which 5.86 lac applicants were foundeligible. The eligible candidates were required to appear at a writtenBtest. 3.22 lac candidates appeared of whom 2690 were selected andcalled for the physical efficiency test. Those who qualified were calledfor verification of original certificates. At that stage, it was noticed thatcertain mal-practices took place during the written examination interalia involving mass copying, leakage of question papers andCimpersonation. The Vigilance Department recommended that the matterbe referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The RailwayRecruitment Board decided to conduct a retest. This decision waschallenged by certain candidates who had taken the first writtenexamination, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the plea. Whileconsidering a challenge to the decision of the Tribunal, the High CourtDheld that there was no reasonable basis to cancel the first selection anddirected the Board to finalize the selection on the basis of the first writtentest save and except for 62 candidates against whom there wereallegations of impersonation.

45. In appeal, this court noted the report of the VigilanceEDepartment which indicated that:

(i) Several candidates were suspected to have obtainedanswers for the questions a few hours before theexamination through a middle-man who had accepted abribe;F

(ii) In respect of 62 candidates, there were serious allegationsof impersonation and on close scrutiny it was found that atleast 6 candidates had adopted unfair means to securequalifying marks in the written test. The investigation primafacie established a leakage of question papers to a sizableGnumber of candidates; and

(iii) This seemed to be pre-planned and the possibility of theinvolvement of the staff of the Board could not be ruledout.

In this backdrop, this Court considered whether the High Courtwas justified in interfering with the decision of the Board to conduct aretest for those who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the firstwritten test. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court,the Board was directed to declare the result of the second test and toappoint the selected candidates subject to the result of the appeals. JusticeK S P Radhakrishnan, speaking for a two judge Bench emphasized thatthree options were available to the Railway Recruitment Board:

“20. …(1) to cancel the entire written test, and to conduct a freshwritten test inviting applications afresh; (2) to conduct a retest forthose candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks inthe first written test; and (3) to go ahead with the first written test(as suggested by the High Court), confining the investigation to62 candidates against whom there were serious allegations ofimpersonation.”

The Court held that the High Court had misdirected itself in directingthe Board to accept the third option and had transgressed the limitationson the power of judicial review. The Court emphasized that the firstalternative would have been time consuming and expensive. If the Boardbelieved that the best option was to conduct a retest for candidates whohad obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test, thedecision of the Board was fair and reasonable. The decision of the HighCourt, it was held, would only perpetuate an illegality since there wereserious allegations of the leakage of question papers, large scaleimpersonation of candidates and mass copying in the first test. Upholdingthe decision of the Railway Recruitment Board, the judgment of theHigh Court was set aside.

46. A more recent decision of a two judge Bench was in State ofTamil Nadu v. A Kalaimani[10](“Kalaimani”). The Teachers RecruitmentBoard in the State of Tamil Nadu had invited applications for selection tothe posts of lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges. The writtenexamination was of an objective type and candidates were required tofill up OMR sheets. There were allegations of large scale malpracticesin the written examination involving tampering of the OMR sheets. Afterre-evaluation, discrepancies were found in the entries pertaining to 196candidates who were beneficiaries of a fraudulent alteration of marks.A decision was taken to cancel the examination which was conducted A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afor selection to the posts of lecturers as the Board was of the view thatthere were chances of more malpractices being unearthed at a laterstage and there was a serious doubt about the purity of the process. TheDivision Bench of the High Court held that the fabrication of the recordspertained only to 196 candidates and when a segregation was possible,the entire examination ought not to be cancelled. In appeal, this CourtBadverted to the decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) as wellas the view which was taken in Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State ofGujarat[11] (“Gohil”) where it was held:

“15. …

“15. …

C“21. Purity of the examination process - whether such examinationprocess pertains to assessment of the academic accomplishmentor suitability of candidates for employment under the State - is anunquestionable requirement of the rationality of any examinationprocess. Rationality is an indispensable aspect of publicadministration under our Constitution. The authority of the StateDto take appropriate measures to maintain the purity of anyexamination process is unquestionable. It is too well settled aprinciple of law in light of the various earlier decisions of thisCourt that where there are allegations of the occurrence of large-scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examinationEprocess, the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel theexamination. This Court has on numerous occasions approvedthe action of the State or its instrumentalities to cancel examinationswhenever such action is believed to be necessary on the basis ofsome reasonable material to indicate that the examination processis vitiated. They are also not obliged to seek proof of each andFevery fact which vitiated the examination process.”

16. It was further held in the said judgment as follows:

“30. Identifying all the candidates who are guilty of malpracticeeither by criminal prosecution or even by an administrative enquiryGis certainly a time-consuming process. If it were to be therequirement of law that such identification of the wrongdoers is amust and only the identified wrongdoers be eliminated from theselection process, and until such identification is completed theprocess cannot be carried on, it would not only result in a great inconvenience to the administration, but also result in a loss oftime even to the innocent candidates. On the other hand, by virtueof the impugned action, the innocent candidates (for the matter allthe candidates including the wrongdoers) still get an opportunityof participating in the fresh examination process to be conductedby the State.”

Justice L Nageswara Rao held that the view of the Division Benchof the High Court was unsustainable and observed:

“14. In the instant case, the Board initially conducted an inquiryon its own regarding the allegations pertaining to manipulation ofthe OMR answer sheets. The Board found that a few peoplebenefited due to the tampering of the OMR answer sheets. On adeeper scrutiny sufficient material was found against 196 personswho were beneficiaries of the fraud in the alteration of marks.The Board was convinced that there were chances of more peoplebeing involved in the manipulation of marks for which reason adecision was taken to cancel the entire examination. A bona fidedecision taken by the Board to instill confidence in the publicregarding the integrity of the selection process could not havebeen interfered with by the High Court. Sufficiency of the materialon the basis of which a decision is taken by an authority is notwithin the purview of the High Court in exercising its power ofjudicial review. More material is being unearthed in the investigationand several people have been arrested. The investigation is inprogress.”

The Court noted that candidates who had a chance of beingselected and appointed as lecturers in Government Polytechnic Collegeson the basis of the results of the written examination may beinconvenienced “but a serious doubt entertained by the Board about themagnitude of the manipulation of the examination has to be given dueweightage”. The judgment of the High Court was accordingly set aside.

47. The decisions in Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board,Gohil and Kalamani (supra) all go to emphasise that a recruitingauthority is entitled to take a bona fide view, based on the materialbefore it, that the entire process stands vitiated as a result of which afresh selection process should be initiated. The integrity of the selectionprocess cannot be lightly disregarded by the High Court substituting its A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aown subjective opinion on the sufficiency of the material which has beentaken into account by the decision making authority. Undoubtedly, fairnessto candidates who participate in the process is an important consideration.There may be situations where candidates who have indulged inirregularities can be identified and it is then possible for the authority tosegregate the tainted from the untainted candidates. On the other hand,Bthere may be situations where the nature of the irregularities may bemanifold and the number of candidates involved is of such a magnitudethat it is impossible to precisely delineate or segregate the tainted fromthe untainted. A considered decision of the authority based on the materialbefore it taken bona fide should not lightly be interfered in the exerciseCof the powers of judicial review unless it stands vitiated on grounds ofunreasonableness or proportionality.

G The present case

48. On 22 August 2015, following the receipt of “seriouscomplaints” in the office of the Chief Minister, GNCTD regardingDirregularities in the conduct of the examinations conducted by DSSSBfor the post of Grade-II DASS, a Committee consisting of the Director(Vigilance) and District Magistrate (East) was appointed to enquire intothe matter and submit its report. The Committee upon a preliminaryexamination noted the gravamen of the complaints which involvedEallegations that:

(i) As many as 50 candidates who had high marks in the Tier-I test (e.g. 170 out of 200) secured less than 50 marks inthe Tier-II test and some candidates had obtained zeromarks;F(ii)The absence of randomization enabled candidates who wereclosely related to sit in a sequence; and

(iii) A significant proportion of the candidates belonged to aconcentrated geographical area.

49. The Committee noted that there was a delay of almost fiveGyears in conducting the Tier-I examination. As a result, of the 62,056applicants only 8224 had appeared at the Tier-I examination giving riseto an apprehension that adequate information had not been furnished tocandidates. The Committee furnished examples of candidates who hadsecured high marks in Tier - I examination but extremely low marks inHthe Tier-II exam. Candidates also appeared to be concentrated from a particular area of Delhi. The Committee found it “astonishing that thewhole marks lists is dominated by a particular section of society” basedon their surnames. There were instances of candidates who had securedhigh marks in Tier-I failing to appear at the Tier-II examination. TheCommittee was critical of the role of DSSSB in failing to devote seriousattention to the irregularities which had taken place during the course ofthe examination.

50. The Committee had representations before it from candidatesas well. The Committee found that members of the same family werefound to be sitting in close proximity both in the Tier-I and Tier-IIexaminations of which details were tabulated in the report. TheCommittee noted that it had addressed a questionnaire to the officials ofDSSSB in regard to the alleged irregularities but they expressed theirinability to answer the queries. The Committee found that in the absenceof randomization, many cases had emerged where two or more membersof a single family sat in consecutive order and were falling under thezone of probable selection. A majority of candidates falling in the zone ofselection appeared to belong to the same geographical area. In thisbackdrop and considering the voluminous nature of the documentarymaterial, the Committee was of the view that either the CBI or theCrime Branch would be able to investigate into the matter. The matterdid not rest there. In its report, the first Committee found that therewere serious irregularities in the examinations conducted by DSSSB forthe post of Grade-II DASS. The report of the Committee dwells on:

(i) The delay of five years in holding the Tier-I examinationafter the advertisement was released in 2009; and

(ii) The issuance of admit cards only through the electronicmode, which was not prescribed in the advertisement.

51. The Committee was of the view that one of the main reasonsfor the appearance of a small proportion of candidates as compared tothe applications was the inability of candidates to access the internet todownload the e-admit cards. This, in the view of the Committee, primafacie vitiated the selection process. DSSSB in its reply had noted that itwould earlier remit the admit cards by post but this gave rise toadministrative difficulties as a result of postal delays, changes in addressand the issuance of duplicate cards in place of those lost or damaged intransit.

AB

C

D

E

FG

H

AB

C

D

E

FG

H

A52. On 5 June 2013, the Board had followed the pattern of theUPSC and Railway Board and decided to alsoissue e-admit cards whichwas to be given a wide publicity. On this aspect the Committee notedthat the advertisement had not mentioned that admit cards shall be issuedthrough the electronic medium only. A period of five years had elapsedsince the date of the advertisement. It was not possible for the candidatesBto keep a vigil on the notifications of a single examination. In this backdrop,the decision of DSSSB, during the course of the process, to allow onlye-admit cards was a deviation which resulted in a small number ofcandidates appearing in the Tier-I examination. This was clearly a pointerto the denial of equal access and opportunity to all candidates in theCselection process. The Committee buttressed this finding by observingthat there was a wide variation between the marks obtained in the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations. In the absence of randomization, it was foundthat members of a family and close relatives sat in the same room anddetails of these candidates were duly tabulated. The Committee dealtwith the explanation of DSSSB that the software for randomization wasDnot available prior to 28 June 2015 and that steps have been taken forreshuffling candidates. The Committee did not accept the explanation ofthe Board, noting that if randomisation had been done in the Tier-Iexamination, it was then inconceivable as to how family members andclose relatives sat in the same room. Moreover, it found it surprising thatErandomisation had been done in Tier-I and not in Tier-II. Though,according to DSSSB, manual reshuffling had been done for the Tier-IIexamination, even then a considerable number of closely related personssat in proximity at the Tier-II examination. Besides these irregularities,the Committee noted that there was a racket which had led to theimpersonation of candidates. This racket involved a person by the nameFof Anil Kumar Malik who was the Chief Invigilator at a particular centre.It was alleged that he was connected with a coaching centre which wasalso involved in the leakage of the question papers. The Committee notedthe allegation that this person had repeatedly fixed his duties in a choiceof his own centres with the help of DSSSB staff and there were instancesGof impersonation which had emerged. The Committee proceeded totabulate these instances. Apart from this, the Committee found that thevideography was blurred, thumb impressions were unrecognizable,jammers were not working properly and candidates had been allowed toappear irrespective of their educational qualifications. Further, it wasnoted that allegations of flying squad members passing answers ontoHcandidates could not be ruled out. Now, in this backdrop, the Secretary Vigilance opined that the entire process of recruitment appeared to bevitiated.

Vigilance opined that the entire process of recruitment appeared to bevitiated.

53. On 23 December 2015, the Deputy Chief Minister noted, onthe basis of the recommendations of the DSSSB on the allegedirregularities in the examination, that all candidates who were in thezone of consideration may be scrutinised to check for impersonation“before the decision of the Board regarding declaration of the results”.Candidates in the zone of consideration who would fail to attend theprocess of verification would stand disqualified from the examination.The second Committee was then constituted to check the credentials ofall candidates falling in the zone of consideration. This led to the reportof the second Committee. The Committee noted that out of 290 candidateswho were called, 270 remained present and another lot of 11 candidatescame forth upon being granted a further opportunity. After conducting aprocess of verification the Committee observed that “no irregularity isfound in the documents of the 281 present candidates”. However, in themeantime, an FIR was lodged on 18 January 2016 by the Anti-CorruptionBranch, Delhi; the files in original were seized on 19 February 2016 andcertified copies of the dossier were subsequently seized on 26 February2016. The Deputy Chief Minister on 2 March 2016, was apprised of thereport of the second Committee. The Deputy Chief Minister noted thatverification had been carried out in respect of the candidates who werein the zone of consideration. At the same time, the report of theDirectorate of Vigilance indicated that the examination process had beenvitiated and “there are far serious complaints about the conduct of Tier-I examination for the same post code”. Noting that there should be “zerotolerance towards corruption and officials who may join governmentthrough improper examination are just not acceptable”, a decision wastaken to cancel the entire examination. However, an age relaxation wasprovided for candidates to appear in the new examination.

54. The drift of the submissions which have been urged by Mr PSPatwalia, learned Senior Counsel is that when the Deputy Chief Ministerdirected that a Committee be constituted to check for impersonationfrom amongst candidates within the zone of selection, by his noting dated23 December 2015, this would necessarily mean that the explanationwhich was tendered by DSSSB in regard to whether any irregularitieshad taken place in the examination stood accepted and nothing furtherremained except to check for impersonation. Hence, it has been submittedthat once the second Committee came to the conclusion that none of the A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A281 candidates in the zone of selection were found to be engaged inimpersonation, there was no basis thereafter to cancel the examination.On the other hand, Ms Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has submitted thatthe remit of the second Committee was narrow in scope, which was toverify only the aspects of impersonation. This did not efface the findingsin the report of the first committee and the deputy Chief Minister couldBhave legitimately decided to cancel the entire process.55. We find on the basis of the record that there is substance inthe submission which has been urged by the ASG. The complaints inregard to the recruitment process related both to the Tier-I and Tier-IIexaminations. The complaints were carefully analysed by the firstCCommittee and as noted earlier serious irregularities were found. Theirregularities were not confined to acts of mal-practice or unfair meanson the part of a specific group of persons. On the contrary, the report ofthe Committee found deficiencies of a systemic nature which cast seriousdoubts on the legitimacy of the entire process of recruitment involvingDboth the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations. The order of the Deputy ChiefMinister dated 23 December 2015 did not differ with the conclusions ofthe first Committee. In fact, the said order refrained from commentingon the findings of the first Committee. All that the Deputy Chief Minister’sorder directed was the narrowing of the scope of further investigation toone of the irregularities, that is, impersonation. In directing that aEverification be carried out on whether any of the candidates in the zoneof selection had been guilty of impersonation, the Deputy Chief Minister’sorder did not wipe out the irregularities in the entire examination process.It is not possible to accept the submission that after ordering a verificationon impersonation, nothing further remained to be done and that therecould be no further rejection of the sanctity of the process on the basisFof the report of the first Committee. It is quite possible that the DeputyChief Minister directed a further investigation into the allegations ofimpersonation only to lend credibility to the ultimate decision which hewould take. Mr Patwalia has made a strenuous effort to read from theexplanation submitted by DSSSB, urging that as many as three IASGofficers and other officers who had appended their signatures to theexplanatory note provided a justification to the defence that the Tier-Iand Tier-II examinations did not suffer from flaws. It must be noted thatthe conduct of DSSSB and its officials was itself under a cloud. Theirexplanation could by no means be regarded as conclusive or bindingupon the authorities of GNCTD. The Deputy Chief Minister inH

recommending that the entire process be cancelled emphasised thesystemic nature of the violations which had taken place. These violationsmay or may not involve all of the candidates within the ultimate zone ofselection but that in our view is beside the point for the simple reasonthat the gravamen of the charge in the present case is not in regard tothe taint which attaches to a specific group of persons but to the sanctityof the recruitment process as a whole. The precedents of this Courtsufficiently demonstrate that when the credibility of an entire examinationstands vitiated by systemic irregularities, the issue then is not about seekingto identify the candidates who are tainted. In the present case, as wehave seen, there was a basic denial of equal access to the Tier-Iexamination. The nature of the allegations which were found to besubstantiated upon a careful examination by the first Committee showedthat the credibility of the process itself had been eroded. In such asituation, where a decision is taken by the Government to cancel theentire process, it cannot be held to be irrational or arbitrary, applying theyardstick of fair procedure and proportionality to the decision-makingprocess.

56. During the course of his submissions, Mr PS Patwalia hassought to provide explanations for each of the systemic irregularitiespointed out by the first Committee, including the drastic reduction in thenumber of candidates who appeared for the Tier-I examination, non-issuance of hard copies of admit cards, shortlisting of candidates belongingto a certain geographical area, lack of randomization in the examinationcentres, among others. In response to this, the learned ASG has pointedout that while assessing whether the recruitment process has beencompromised, the factors (or irregularities) must be looked at cumulativelyto ascertain whether they are sufficiently grave to cancel the recruitment.We find ourselves in agreement with the learned ASG. So long as thereis sufficient basis to contend that mass-scale irregularities have occurred,this Court need not indulge in a roving inquiry to rule out all possibleexplanations and alternative scenarios where such irregularities wouldbe justified.

57. Recruitment to public services must command publicconfidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil publicfunctions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where theentire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedlycause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involvedin wrong-doing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato cancel an examination where the nature of the wrong-doing cutsthrough the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacyof the examinations which have been held for recruitment. Both theHigh Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusivefocus on the report of the second Committee which was confined to theissue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee is only oneBfacet of the matter. The Deputy Chief Minister was justified in goingbeyond it and ultimately recommending that the entire process should becancelled on the basis of the findings which were arrived at in the reportof the first Committee. Those findings do not stand obliterated nor hasthe Tribunal found any fault with those findings. In this view of the matter,Cboth the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable.58. During the course of her submissions, the ASG has placed onrecord the fact that in the subsequent recruitment processes a numberof the 281 candidates participated afresh. An age relaxation had beengranted. In 2017, 133 out of 281 candidates participated and 13 wereselected. In 2020, 87 out of the 281 participated, and 3 of them wereDshort-listed. During the course of her submissions, the ASG has alsosubmitted that even among the 281 candidates, it is not possible to concludethat all of them are untainted. In the view which we have taken it is notnecessary to dwell on this aspect of the matter once the Court has arrivedat the conclusion that the entire process was vitiated and that theEcancellation was proper.

59. The Tribunal while setting aside the decision to cancel therecruitment process directed the Government to process the appointmentsof all 281 candidates who were found to be within the zone of selectionthough as a matter of fact only 6 of them had moved the Tribunal. AfterDSSSB and GNCTD moved the High Court in proceedings under ArticleF226 to challenge the decision of the Tribunal, intervention applicationswere moved by several candidates. These interventions were rejectedby the High Court and we have also extracted from the order passedduring the pendency of the proceedings on 15 December 2017 in para20 of this judgment. The High Court while dismissing the applicationsfor intervention noted that the cause of action had accrued on 15 MarchG2016 when the entire examination had been cancelled, in spite of whichnone of the intervening candidates had challenged the decision. Thejudgment of the High Court in the present case was delivered on 13January 2020 and it is only thereafter that this Court has been movedunder Article 136 of the Constitution. Some of the petitioners whoHinstituted Special Leave Petitions before this Court had not even moved applications for intervention before the High Court. Others did not pursuetheir remedies against the order of the High Court dated 15 December2017 for over 2 years. They have taken no steps to challenge the decisionfor the cancellation of the examination. In view of the fact that we haveupheld the submissions of DSSSB and GNCTD and proceed to set asidethe judgment of the High Court, the SLPs filed by the candidates wouldhave to stand rejected, in any event.

A

B

60. For the above reasons, we order and direct:

(i) The facts which have come to light during the course ofthe hearing of this batch of SLPs reflect on the seriousflaws in the process which was conducted by DSSSB.CDSSSB and GNCTD must now take adequate measuresto ensure against the recurrence of such instances whicherode the credibility of and public confidence in therecruitment process. We direct that a comprehensiveexercise to re-visit the modalities and safeguards be carriedout within a period of two months to ensure that the probityDof the recruitment process in future is maintained; D

(ii) The notification dated 15 March 2016 of GNCTD cancellingthe Tier-I and Tier-II examinations held for recruitment tothe post of Head Clerk [(Grade II (DASS)] under post code90/09 is upheld; E

(iii) The appeals filed by DSSSB (arising from Special LeavePetition (C) No. 11940 of 2020) and GNCTD (arising fromSpecial Leave Petition (C) No. 12066 of 2020) are allowed;

(iv) The judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Courtdated 13 January 2020 (and in consequence the judgmentof the Tribunal) are set aside; and F

(v) The companion appeals arising out of the SLPs[12 ]filed bythe candidates stand dismissed.

12 SLP(C) No. 5785-5786/2020SLP(C) No. 5783-5784/2020SLP(C) No. 5370-5371/2020SLP(C) No. 8811-8812/2020SLP(C) No. 11443-11444/2020SLP(C) No. 11441-11442/2020SLP(C) No. 12410-12411/2020SLP(C) No. 15297-15298/2020SLP(C) No. 15299-15300/2020SLP(C) No. 110-111/2021

G

H

[2021] 2 S.C.R.

A61. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), ifany, stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

B

C

D

E

F

G

H