Case at a Glance
Employees of Chhattisgarh’s Commercial Tax Department who had been promoted from Assistant Grade-III to State Tax Inspector through Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations in 2021 and 2022 were reverted on 11.09.2026, when the department cancelled the examinations after a five-member enquiry found tampered answer sheets, custody lapses and roster violations. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed about 30 writ petitions, holding that where irregularities are widespread, individual show-cause notices are not necessary and cancelling the whole selection is not disproportionate. The authorities were directed to hold a fresh, fair and transparent recruitment process expeditiously.
The Commercial Tax Department, Chhattisgarh, held Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE) for promotion from Assistant Grade-III (clerical cadre) to State Tax Inspector. Applications for the 2021 examination were invited on 27.10.2021, the examination was held on 19.12.2021 and results were declared on 24.12.2021; a second examination followed in 2022. More than 500 candidates appeared against 30 vacancies. Unsuccessful candidates complained on 19.01.2022. The petitioners were appointed, cleared departmental subject examinations in August 2022, and some were confirmed on 14.03.2024.
On 04.07.2025 the department constituted a five-member Enquiry Committee, which reported on 03.07.2026. On 11.09.2026 the examinations, the selection and the appointment orders were cancelled and the petitioners reverted to Assistant Grade-III. They argued that no show-cause notice was issued, the enquiry report was not supplied, no individual misconduct or fraud was attributed to them, they had served for “nearly five years” and been confirmed, and the reversion amounted to reduction in rank.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the State cancel an entire departmental promotion examination and revert all selected candidates, without individual show-cause notices, when an enquiry finds widespread irregularities in the process?
When the Process Itself Is Compromised
The Court relied on the Enquiry Committee’s findings: defective custody and coding of answer booklets, unauthorised re-evaluation with marks altered in red pen, violations of the reservation roster, unverified invigilator signatures on the 2022 sheets, absence of nominated evaluators, and discrepancies in the number of answer sheets. It held that the Government had three choices, to continue, to cancel and restart, or to separate the valid from the tainted, and that choosing cancellation was not disproportionate: “the cancellation of the process cannot be faulted merely on the ground that the irregularities were curable.” Quoting Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1994) 05 SC CK 0046, it observed that when a selection is “conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place.”
On natural justice, the Court relied on Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 02 SC CK 0040, where no hearing was needed because the evidence of mass irregularity was plain, and Union of India v. O. Chakradhar, (2002) 02 SC CK 0003, under which, where wrongdoing is widespread, individual show-cause notices are unnecessary and cancelling the whole selection is the way out. With more than 500 candidates involved, separating wrongdoers from the innocent was difficult. The Court distinguished Pawan Kumar Tiwari v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, (2025) 08 SC CK 0168, because here the recruitment process itself was in question, and also referred to Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2006) 05 SC CK 0081 and State of Assam v. Arabinda Rabha, (2025) 03 SC CK 0195.
What the Court Actually Held
- Where an enquiry establishes systemic irregularities in a departmental examination, the State may cancel the entire process rather than attempt to segregate tainted from untainted candidates.
- Individual show-cause notices are not required where wrongdoing is widespread and the process itself is compromised.
- Cancellation was not disproportionate merely because some irregularities were curable; the reversion of the selected employees was upheld.
- All writ petitions were dismissed without costs; the authorities must conduct a fresh recruitment process under the rules, fairly, transparently and expeditiously.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It affects government employees across departments whose promotions rest on internal examinations later found to be compromised.
- It restates the ‘tainted process’ exception to the rule that individuals must be heard before adverse action.
- It requires a fresh, transparent process, so eligible candidates get another chance.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Government Employees
- Years of service and confirmation will not protect a promotion if the examination itself is found to be compromised.
- Watch for the fresh recruitment process and apply; the Court directed it to be held promptly.
- If you were not involved in any wrongdoing, document your case, but note that courts may still uphold cancellation of the whole process.
For Counsel
- Distinguish between individual misconduct cases, where hearing is essential, and systemic-taint cases governed by Union of India v. O. Chakradhar.
- Challenge the enquiry findings themselves where possible; once accepted, proportionality arguments are weak.
- Cases like Pawan Kumar Tiwari v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board help only where the process itself is not in question.
Key Takeaways
- A departmental exam marred by tampered answer sheets and roster violations can be cancelled in full.
- No individual hearing is necessary where the irregularities are widespread.
- About 30 reverted State Tax Inspectors lost their challenge.
- A fresh, transparent recruitment process must be held expeditiously.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the government cancel an entire promotion exam because of irregularities?
Yes, on the facts here. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that where an enquiry finds systemic irregularities, cancelling the whole process is not disproportionate.
Were the affected employees entitled to a hearing before reversion?
Relying on Union of India v. O. Chakradhar and Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, the Court held that individual show-cause notices were not necessary where wrongdoing was widespread.
What happens next?
The Court directed the authorities to conduct a fresh recruitment process under the applicable rules, fairly, transparently and without unnecessary delay.
Conclusion
The petitioners had been promoted, confirmed and in service for years, but the Chhattisgarh High Court held that their individual position could not save a selection whose integrity had been shown to be compromised. The answer, in the Court’s view, is a clean, fresh process rather than an attempt to rescue a tainted one.
Practical takeaway: When a departmental examination is under enquiry, selected candidates should engage with the enquiry early; once systemic irregularity is established, courts are unlikely to interfere with cancellation of the entire process.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com