Smt. Kamna Gupta & Ors. vs Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr.

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the present Original Application arises out of the recruitment process conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 15/2022 for 355 posts of Librarian, wherein the applicants had the requisite qualifications and appeared in the written examination conducted by KVS/CBSE on 06.03.2023.

It was submitted that, despite the large number of vacancies, the unusually high cut-off of 152 marks out of 180 (84.5%), as against 101 marks (56.11%) for the corresponding recruitment in 2019, raised serious concerns regarding the fairness and integrity of the selection process.

Learned counsel further submitted that an analysis of the publicly available data revealed a peculiar geographical pattern among the successful candidates, particularly in the UR category, with 160 out of 257 candidates called for interview being from Haryana and 40 from Delhi/NCR, and a substantial number having opted for examination centres situated far away from their places of domicile. It was contended that such unusual concentration of successful candidates from a particular geographical region, coupled with other irregularities, warranted an independent examination of the recruitment process.

It was further submitted that the examination was conducted through APTECH, which, according to the applicants, had already been blacklisted/banned in several States on account of alleged malpractices, thereby adding to the apprehension regarding the credibility of the recruitment process. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants are not merely challenging their individual non-selection, but are questioning the fairness, transparency, and integrity of the recruitment process as a whole, alleging that the irregularities have resulted in denial of the equal opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

In support of the prayer for appropriate interference, learned ^counselCentral Administrative Tribunal ^{placed reliance upon Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi} Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 128, submitting that a fair and reasonable selection process conforming to Articles 14 and 16(1) is a constitutional requirement and that systematic irregularities affecting equal access to similarly situated candidates may vitiate the selection process.

Reliance was also placed upon Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2017) 13 SCC 621, to contend that the purity of an examination process is an essential requirement and that, where large-scale malpractice is supported by reasonable material, the

entire examination may be cancelled without requiring proof against each individual candidate.

Learned counsel further relied upon Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha & Ors., (1970) 1 SCC 648, submitting that where an examination is vitiated by mass-scale adoption of unfair means, the examination as a whole may be cancelled without undertaking an individual inquiry against every candidate.

Reliance was also placed upon Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey, (1994) 5 SCC 663 and Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board & Anr. v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 614, in support of the proposition that, where large-scale irregularities or malpractices are supported by material on record, appropriate corrective measures, including re-examination, may be warranted.

Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the cumulative circumstances disclosed by the applicants create a serious doubt regarding the purity and credibility of the entire recruitment process, and therefore the impugned result/notice dated 10.05.2023 and the recruitment process pursuant to Advertisement No.

15/2022 deserve to be interfered with in the interest of a fair and transparent selection process.

Opposing the Original Application, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the applicants, having failed to secure the prescribed cut-off of 152.6693 marks out of 180 in the written examination, were not shortlisted for interview. It was contended that the cut-off is determined on the basis of the number of vacancies and the performance of candidates in the particular examination and cannot be compared with the cut-off of previous years.

Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations of geographical concentration of selected candidates and irregularities in allotment of examination centres are based merely on post-result analysis, as candidates were permitted to choose four examination cities of their choice and there was no restriction regarding selection of a nearby or distant centre.

It was further submitted that the applicants have produced no documentary evidence whatsoever of any malpractice or unfair means in the examination, nor any material establishing that M/s Aptech Ltd. was banned or blacklisted by the competent authority. Accordingly, it was

submitted that the allegations are vague, baseless and unsupported by evidence and that the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 also opposed the Original Application and submitted that the applicants are unsuccessful candidates who have sought to challenge the entire recruitment process merely on the basis of their own assumptions and post-result analysis. It was submitted that the written examination was conducted at 233 examination centres, and candidates were free to exercise their choices of examination cities, with no restriction as to selection of a centre within or outside their domicile State.

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants have failed to place on record any credible or documentary material demonstrating malpractice, unfair means, or manipulation in the examination, including any material substantiating the allegation regarding the alleged blacklisting of M/s Aptech Ltd. It was therefore contended that the allegations are founded on presumptions and conjectures and, in the absence of any material showing illegality in the conduct of the examination, the Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

In the written submissions filed on 22.09.2025, learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that M/s Aptech Ltd., the agency engaged for conducting the examination, had allegedly been involved in several instances of examination-related irregularities in different States, including alleged malpractices in UP Jal Nigam and Rajasthan Police recruitments, blacklisting by UPPCL, irregularities in examinations conducted for the Assam Irrigation Department and Delhi University, and alleged paper leaks/irregularities in CTET-2023 and KVS PGT/TGT/PRT examinations, besides other adverse actions concerning the agency. It was contended that these instances, coupled with the alleged irregularities in the present recruitment, raise serious concerns regarding the credibility and integrity of the examination process.

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

The principal issue for consideration is whether the circumstances relied upon by the applicants are sufficient to hold that the recruitment examination conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 15/2022 stood vitiated by large-scale malpractice or irregularity, so as to warrant cancellation of the entire examination and a direction for its re-conduct.

The applicants have primarily relied upon the unusually high cut-off in the present examination as compared to the examination held in 2019, the geographical distribution of candidates shortlisted for interview, the choice of examination centres by certain candidates, and the fact that a substantial number of successful candidates came from certain regions. They have also relied upon alleged past irregularities involving M/s Aptech Ltd., the agency engaged for conducting the examination.

These circumstances undoubtedly give rise to certain questions and may justify the applicants' apprehension regarding the selection process. However, the question before us is whether they constitute sufficient and reliable material to establish that the examination itself was vitiated by ^{malpractice or manipulation. In our considered view, they do not.}Central Administrative Tribunal

As regards the cut-off, the respondents have explained that the cut-off is dependent upon the number of vacancies and the performance of candidates in the particular examination. A higher cut-off in one recruitment, by itself, cannot establish malpractice, particularly when the examination pattern, level of difficulty, and performance of the candidates may vary from one recruitment to another.

Similarly, the geographical concentration of successful candidates and their choice of examination centres, though relied upon heavily by

the applicants, cannot by themselves establish manipulation of the examination. The respondents have explained that candidates were permitted to choose four examination cities and that there was no restriction requiring them to select a centre near their place of domicile. The mere fact that some candidates selected examination centres situated far from their place of residence, therefore, cannot lead to a conclusion that such candidates had a malafide intention or that the examination was compromised.

The applicants have also relied upon the alleged past involvement of M/s Aptech Ltd. in irregularities in other examinations. Even assuming that such instances had occurred in other examinations, the same cannot, ^{without independent material connecting those instances with the present}Central Administrative Tribunal examination, establish that the present examination was also conducted unfairly. Each recruitment process has to be examined on the basis of the material relating to that particular examination. The respondents have specifically stated that the applicants have not produced any documentary evidence of malpractice or unfair means in the examination in question, nor any material establishing that M/s Aptech Ltd. was banned or blacklisted by the competent authority in a manner affecting the present recruitment.

We have also considered the aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants, including Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. DSSSB & Ors.(supra), Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (supra), Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha & Ors. (supra), Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey and Chairman(supra), All India Railway Recruitment Board & Anr. v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. (supra). The principles laid down therein regarding the requirement of maintaining the purity of a selection process are not in dispute. However, those decisions operate where there is material indicating actual or large-scale irregularity/malpractice in the concerned examination. They do not lay down that an examination can be cancelled merely because certain circumstances create suspicion in the minds of unsuccessful candidates.

In the present case, the applicants have not placed before us any specific material showing paper leakage, manipulation of the examination system, impersonation, unfair assistance to particular candidates, or any other concrete act of malpractice in the examination in question. The allegations, in substance, rest upon statistical patterns, geographical distribution, choice of examination centres and the alleged past conduct of the examination agency. These circumstances, even

taken cumulatively, fall short of establishing that the examination as a whole was vitiated.

We also observe that, as per the applicants’ own pleadings, their case is premised on the assertion that, upon comparing their raw and normalized scores with those of the successful candidates, coupled with their analysis of the unusual choice of examination centres, the alleged malpractices in the recruitment process came to light. It is also significant that the applicants seek cancellation of the entire examination and a fresh recruitment exercise. Such a direction has serious consequences for all candidates who participated in the selection process, including those who may have been successful without any ^{allegation against them. Therefore, before such a course is adopted, the}Central Administrative Tribunal Tribunal must be satisfied, on the basis of cogent material, that the integrity of the examination has been substantially compromised. Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot be treated as proof of such widespread malpractice. Even without any representation / objections after such detection(s) have been noticed, no formal complaints to the concerned authorised authorities, which would substantiate the claim of the applicants, have been placed on record.

We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the circumstances relied upon by the applicants are sufficient to invalidate

the entire recruitment process. No case has been made for directing an investigation by an external agency or for ordering the re-conduct of the examination at this juncture.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.