University of Delhi and Anr. vs Deepak and Ors.

TEJAS KARIA, J

This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 02 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the averments made in the Application, the same is allowed. The delay of 02 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

The Application stands disposed of.

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment dated 30.05.2025 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 581/2024 and other connected writ petitions (“Writ Petitions”), filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 76, whereby the Writ Petitions were allowed and the Notifications dated 25.08.2023 and 29.08.2023 (“Notifications”) issued by the Appellant University were quashed and set aside.

The Appellant University engaged the services of the National Testing Agency (“NTA”) for conducting the written examination for recruitment to, and filling up of, vacancies in various non-teaching posts in the University. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued by the NTA on behalf of the University on 23.02.2021, prescribing the period for online submission of application forms from 23.02.2021 to 16.03.2021 and for payment of fees up to 17.03.2021. Pursuant to the said advertisement, Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 applied for the post of Laboratory Attendant / Library Attendant.

The written examination was conducted exclusively by the NTA, without any intervention or participation of the University in the conduct of the examination. The NTA published the list of selected candidates on 04.07.2023, wherein 151 candidates were selected, in order of merit, for the post of Laboratory Attendant and 108 candidates were selected, in order of merit, for the post of Library Attendant. Upon receipt of the result from the NTA, the University published, on 18.08.2023, the list of candidates to whom offers of appointment were issued based the result of the written examination.

On 24.08.2023, nine candidates selected for the post of Laboratory Attendant reported to the University. Upon interaction with the said candidates, the University found that they lacked basic knowledge required for the post for which they had been selected, despite having secured very high marks in the examination conducted by the NTA, which included questions relating to science and mathematics.

Vide Notification dated 25.08.2023, the University decided to keep the joining of the candidates on hold. Thereafter, vide Notification dated 29.08.2023, the University notified that the matter relating to the selection of candidates to whom offers of appointment had been issued vide letter dated 18.08.2023 was under examination and, accordingly, the joining of all such candidates, including those who had already reported, was kept on hold.

On 12.01.2024, Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 filed the Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge of this Court challenging the Notifications and seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the University to permit them to join their respective posts. Vide order dated 15.01.2024, notice was issued in the Writ Petitions and the University as well as the NTA were directed to file their counter affidavits.

The NTA filed its counter affidavit on 19.03.2024, whereas the University filed its counter affidavit on 21.03.2024. Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 filed their rejoinders on 15.04.2024. Thereafter, the University filed additional affidavits on 22.07.2024, 28.08.2024, 25.11.2024 and 17.02.2025.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 filed consolidated written submissions on 25.02.2025, whereas the NTA filed its written submissions on 27.02.2025 in the Writ Petitions. The University filed its common written submissions on 06.03.2025.

The learned Single Judge, vide the Impugned Judgment, allowed the Writ Petitions by quashing and setting aside the Notifications and directing the University to complete the formalities of document verification, take the selection process to its logical conclusion by appointing Respondent Nos. 1 to 76, and permit them to join their respective places of posting forthwith, with all consequential benefits.

Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the University has preferred the present Appeal.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants has made the following submissions:

Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 made the following submissions:

The learned Counsel for the NTA made the following submissions:

The learned Single Judge, after examining the law governing the scope of judicial interference and the parameters applicable to cancellation of examinations in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, 2010 SCC OnLine SC 579; Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 K.B. 223; Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) (supra); Anamica Mishra v. U.P. Public Service Commission, 1989 SCC OnLine SC 414; Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu, (2003) 7 SCC 285; Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356; Vanshika Yadav (supra); and State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Kalaimani, (2021) 16 SCC 217, culled out the principles governing judicial review of an examination process as under:

Judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and does not extend to an appellate examination of the merits of the decision.

A challenge to an examination process cannot be treated as an appeal on merits.

Although the purity of an examination process is of paramount importance, cancellation of an examination may be justified only where allegations disclose large-scale malpractice, fraud, leakage of question papers, mass copying, exchange of bribes or similar serious irregularities affecting the conduct of the examination.

The Court may interfere only where the examination process is shown to be arbitrary, improper or irrational.

Procedural impropriety would include breach of natural justice, bad faith or bias.

Irrationality, in the Wednesbury sense, refers to a decision so unreasonable and defiant of logic that no reasonable authority, properly directing itself to the issue, could have arrived at it.

For determining whether an examination process stands vitiated, it is necessary to ascertain whether the irregularities occurred at a systemic level to affect the sanctity of the process.

Cancellation of the entire examination process would be justified only where a systemic flaw is established.

A finding of systemic infirmity must be specific and categorical, and supported by concrete and relevant material establishing widespread and pervasive irregularities capable of undermining the examination process.

It must further be determined, based on material gathered through a fair, transparent and thorough enquiry, that the illegalities go to the root of the matter and vitiate the selection process in its entirety.

There must also be satisfaction, based on the material available, that the irregularity affected a substantial number of candidates or otherwise tainted the process at a systemic level.

The material on record must indicate systemic malaise and not merely isolated or speculative irregularities.

Cancellation of the examination should ordinarily be sustained only where it is not possible to segregate tainted candidates from untainted candidates.

The learned Single Judge found that, despite filing multiple affidavits, the University had failed to establish the identity of the officials who allegedly interacted with the Laboratory Attendants who reported pursuant to the offers of appointment. It was further held that the process of interview, interaction or personality assessment was contrary to the selection procedure prescribed in the advertisement.

The learned Single Judge further observed that the alleged incompetence of a few candidates could not justify an inference that the remaining selected candidates, who had not even reported for joining, were incompetent or lacked the requisite knowledge to secure high scores in the examination, in the absence of material establishing the same.

The learned Single Judge also noticed that, until issuance of the Notification dated 25.08.2023, no complaint regarding the conduct of the examination by the NTA had been made either by any unsuccessful candidate or by any third party.

The learned Single Judge observed that the 2023 Report was based on the Committee’s analysis of centres at Delhi, Chandigarh and Shimla, and recorded the University’s conclusion that toppers in the merit list were concentrated in a few centres with nil or minimal representation from larger States such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan. The Impugned Judgment also noticed the University’s reliance upon the disparity between the marks obtained by successful candidates in Classes X and XII and the percentage secured by them in the NTA examination, which carried negative marking. However, the learned Single Judge found the said justification insufficient for keeping the joining of selected candidates on hold.

The learned Single Judge further held that although the 2024 Committee had undertaken data analysis by using standard technological tools such as Microsoft Excel and Python, the analysis was confined to suspected centres and selected candidates and, therefore, proceeded on an erroneous premise.

The learned Single Judge observed that the University appeared to have acted under the possible extraneous influence of the Delhi University and College Karamchari Union while keeping the joining of selected candidates on hold and thereafter resorted to a process of reverse engineering to generate material in support of its allegation of use of unfair means. This conclusion was founded on the fact that the University filed successive affidavits from time to time to establish the alleged use of unfair means by selected candidates and their modus operandi for securing high scores. The learned Single Judge found the conclusions drawn by the University Committee to be hypothetical, and held that the University had failed to discharge its burden of proving that the entire examination process stood compromised.

The learned Single Judge placed considerable reliance upon the explanation furnished by the NTA and held that, in view of the security protocols implemented by it, there was no possibility of malpractice in the conduct of the examination. The Impugned Judgment accordingly proceeded on the premise that the examination was not susceptible to unfair means or malpractice in view of the rigorous safeguards stated to be in place.

The learned Single Judge further held that the data-analysis exercise undertaken by the University was merely a device to justify its earlier decision to stall the joining of selected candidates and did not inspire confidence. On that basis, it was held that the University had failed to establish the use of unfair means in the examination.

Consequently, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the Notifications and directed the University to complete the remaining formalities of document verification, appoint the selected candidates, and permit them to join their respective posts forthwith, along with all consequential benefits.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, examined the material placed on record, and perused the Impugned Judgment. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the reasoning recorded in the Impugned Judgment, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, for the reasons set out hereinafter.

The settled principles governing judicial review of examination processes confer due deference upon the employer or recruiting authority in determining whether illegality, procedural impropriety, widespread malpractice or systemic infirmity has vitiated the examination process, particularly where it may not be possible to segregate tainted candidates from untainted candidates. Such deference, however, is predicated upon the employer forming its satisfaction based on cogent material available on record. Accordingly, before cancelling or withholding the implementation of a selection process, the employer must be satisfied, on relevant and credible material, that the integrity of the examination has been compromised at a systemic level.

In the present case, the University conducted the investigation in the purported malpractices in the examination conducted by NTA by appointing the Committee constituted for that purpose. The Committee noticed that the successful candidates were disproportionately concentrated in a few specific examination centres, while there was nil or minimal representation from larger States. In an examination conducted on a pan-India basis, such concentration was a circumstance which required closer scrutiny, particularly when the allocation of centres was undertaken by the NTA and not by the candidates themselves. The Committee further noticed a substantial disparity between the marks secured by several successful candidates in Classes X and XII and the marks obtained by them in the examination conducted by the NTA. It also found that more than 100 candidates had secured marks exceeding 90%, with nearly 20 candidates obtaining approximately 95%, despite the examination carrying negative marking and consisting of questions from varied subjects.

The Committee also found a visible pattern in the correct as well as incorrect responses of candidates from the suspected centres, and noticed that such candidates had not left any questions without attempting. In the context of an objective examination, particularly one involving negative marking, the absence of any questions that are not attempted, when coupled with commonality in incorrect answers and high scores from the same centres, was a relevant circumstance for assessing whether the declared result reflected genuine merit.

Considering the overall circumstances, we find that these findings were not based merely on subjective impressions, but on data analysis undertaken by the Committee and placed on record in the form of colour-coded Excel sheets and other comparative material. The material so produced, therefore, furnished a cogent basis for the University to establish serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the examination process.

Further, the University was justified in analysing the data pertaining to the suspected centres, which were identified on the basis that at least three successful candidates had emerged from each of the said centres. The object of the exercise was not to undertake an abstract statistical study of the entire examination, but to examine whether the merit list, to the extent it reflected an abnormal concentration of successful candidates from suspected centres, disclosed indicators of manipulation or adoption of unfair means. Once the concern of the University arose from the concentration of selected candidates at specific centres, it was both reasonable and permissible for the Committee to focus its scrutiny on those centres where such concentration was found.

The centres from which no candidate was selected, or from which no meaningful cluster of selected candidates emerged, were not required to be examined as such centres did not contribute to the impugned merit pattern which had prompted the inquiry. The purpose of the Committee’s analysis was to assess the credibility of the selection of successful candidates and not to determine, in isolation, whether every examination centre in the country had functioned without any irregularity. In cases of suspected examination malpractice, the inquiry may legitimately be centred on the class of candidates and centres which reveal statistically unusual or otherwise suspicious features. Such a focused inquiry cannot be characterised as selective merely because it did not extend, with equal detail, to centres from which no candidate was selected or from which no abnormal pattern emerged.

Accordingly, we of the view that the methodology adopted by the University cannot be rejected solely on the ground that it did not analyse all candidates across all centres. The relevant question was whether the selected candidates from the identified centres displayed patterns which, when tested against the available data, gave rise to a reasonable inference that the examination process had been compromised.

A perusal of the Memo of Parties of this Appeal indicates that a substantial number of Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 are residents of limited geographical belts, namely the districts or nearby areas of Sonipat, Mahendragarh, Jind, Hisar, Jhajjar, Bhiwani and Rohtak in the State of Haryana; Dausa, Alwar, Sawai Madhopur and Karauli in the State of Rajasthan; and Chapra in the State of Bihar. This circumstance assumes significance in the context of the scale and nature of the examination, which was conducted on a pan-India basis. In such a large recruitment examination, drawing candidates from across the country, the emergence of a disproportionately large number of successful candidates from a few contiguous or proximate regions was not an ordinary feature and was rightly treated by the University as a matter requiring closer examination.

The improbability is further confirmed by the fact that the selected candidates were not merely from one State but were concentrated within specific districts or localities of a few States, notwithstanding that the examination was open to candidates across the country. Such concentration of successful candidates from limited geographical pockets, when viewed in conjunction with other material circumstances noticed by the Committee, constituted a relevant circumstance supporting the University’s decision to subject the fairness of the selection process to further scrutiny. A tabular statement indicating the relevant residential details of Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 as per the Memo or Parties of this Appeal is as under:

The aforesaid tabulation, when read in conjunction with the material produced by the University, demonstrates that the present case is not one of an ordinary, incidental or statistically insignificant clustering of successful candidates. The examination in question was conducted on a pan-India basis at 87 examination centres spread across 36 cities and involved 1,15,997 candidates for six non-teaching posts. Out of the said 87 examination centres, 64 centres were utilised for the post of Laboratory Attendant and 37 centres were utilised for the post of Library Attendant. In such a large-scale recruitment exercise, where candidates from different parts of the country were eligible to participate and where allocation of examination centres was undertaken by the NTA, the emergence of a substantial number of successful candidates from only a few geographical belts within three States is highly improbable.

While the mere fact that several successful candidates belong to particular regions may not, by itself, be determinative of malpractice, if it is examined along with the other features noticed by the Committees, including the concentration of such candidates at identified centres, unusually high scores despite negative marking, similarity in response patterns and commonality in incorrect answers, clearly indicates probability of existence of malpractice.

The improbability is further enhanced by the fact that several successful candidates belonged to places situated away from the centres which were identified as suspect centres. Although such concentration, viewed in isolation, may not be conclusive of malpractice, when examined cumulatively with the other circumstances noticed by the Committee, furnished a legitimate and reasonable basis for the University to undertake a further examination of the serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the examination process.

The aforesaid circumstances provide substantial support to the conclusions drawn by the Committee constituted by the University. The Committee did not proceed merely based on suspicion arising from high scores but also examined the response patterns of successful candidates from the identified centres. The findings recorded by the Committee indicate a discernible pattern not only in the correct answers, but also in the incorrect answers attempted by such candidates.

In the context of a multiple-choice examination, commonality in incorrect responses, particularly where such commonality is repeatedly found amongst a cluster of successful candidates from the same examination centres, constitutes a circumstance of considerable evidentiary significance. We are of the view that such material cannot be brushed aside as conjectural merely on the ground that there is no direct evidence of copying or that no candidate was apprehended during the examination while resorting to unfair means.

The justification advanced by the NTA that adequate security measures had been implemented, including randomisation, CCTV surveillance, biometric verification, deployment of invigilators and observers, and use of secured computer systems, does not, in our considered view, sufficiently answer the material findings recorded by the Committee constituted by the University.

The existence of security protocols is undoubtedly a relevant circumstance; however, it cannot be treated as conclusive proof that the examination process was incapable of being compromised. Where, notwithstanding such safeguards, the post-examination data reveals a consistent and abnormal pattern of success from identified centres, coupled with similarity in response patterns and commonality in incorrect answers, the Court cannot presume the examination process to be unimpeachable merely because standard protocols were stated to have been followed.

Further, the fact that the NTA engaged an external Exam Delivery Agency for certain critical aspects of the conduct of the examination cannot be disregarded. The responsibility to ensure the fairness, security and integrity of the examination continued to rest with the NTA and, therefore, the NTA was required to demonstrate that effective supervision, control and accountability were maintained at every stage of the examination process. In the present case, however, the NTA merely relied upon adherence to standard protocols and did not meaningfully address the analytical material placed on record by the University. Consequently, the NTA failed to displace the specific findings recorded by the Committee constituted by the University.

We are also unable to agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge that, since no complaint of malpractice existed on the date of issuance of the Notifications, the subsequent enquiry could not be relied upon. The absence of a prior complaint does not preclude an employer from acting upon circumstances which come to its notice at the stage of joining. The interaction with the nine candidates, who reported pursuant to the offers of appointment was not considered the University as a part of the selection process, but merely as a trigger for the University to examine whether the results declared by the NTA reflected the true merit of the candidates.

At the stage when the Notifications were issued, a final finding of malpractice could not reasonably have existed as the same can only emerge after examining the relevant data and undertaking a complete analysis of the available evidence. Therefore, the subsequent enquiry cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it was undertaken after the joining was put on hold.

The observation in the Impugned Judgment that the University indulged in reverse engineering to justify its decision to stall the joining of the selected candidates also does not commend acceptance. The material on record shows that the University constituted Committees to examine the issue, sought data from the NTA, analysed the response sheets and placed its conclusions before the Court. The fact that further material was gathered after the initial decision to withhold joining does not, by itself, render the exercise mala fide or colourable.

In cases involving suspected examination malpractice, particularly where the alleged irregularity may be reflected only through response patterns or statistical improbabilities, the relevant material would ordinarily become available only upon a detailed post-result analysis. The reports of the Committees disclosed identifiable parameters and examples, including centre-wise concentration, similarity indices and matching incorrect answers, which cannot be characterised as a mere afterthought or as speculative material without examining their cumulative effect.

The submission of Respondent Nos. 1 to 76, as also the observation of the learned Single Judge, that the decision to put the joining of the selected candidates on hold was influenced by the protest of the Delhi University and College Karamchari Union, may appear attractive at first instance in view of the letter dated 21.09.2023 addressed by the University to the Union. However, the mere fact that the University informed the Union about the decision already taken to keep the joining of newly recruited Laboratory Attendants and Library Attendants on hold is not sufficient to hold that the decision itself was actuated by extraneous considerations. The legality of the University’s action must be tested based on the material which ultimately emerged from the enquiry and the reasons which weighed with the competent authority.

The reports of the Committees disclose concrete circumstances, including abnormal centre-wise concentration of successful candidates, matching response patterns and similarity in incorrect answers, which provide an independent basis for the University’s concern regarding the integrity of the examination. These circumstances cannot be ignored merely because there was, at the relevant time, an agitation by the contractual employees within the University.

We also find importance in the University’s offer to conduct a fresh written test only for the selected candidates, with a reduced qualifying threshold of 35%, while assuring appointment to those who satisfied the said benchmark. Such an offer indicates that the University was not seeking to defeat the selection altogether but was attempting to verify whether the selected candidates possessed the minimum competence for appointment and had secured their place in the merit list without resorting to malpractice. The refusal of the said offer by the concerned candidates, both before the learned Single Judge and during the hearing of the present Appeal, though not determinative of incompetence of the selected candidates by itself, is a relevant circumstance which reinforces the University’s apprehension regarding the fairness of the selection.

The examination process, particularly where it concerns recruitment to public institutions, has to be conducted in a free, fair, transparent and unimpeachable manner. Public examinations are mechanisms through which public confidence in institutional selection, equal opportunity and merit-based recruitment is maintained. Any conduct which has the effect of compromising the sanctity of such an examination, whether by leakage of material, unauthorised assistance, manipulation of systems, collusion, tampering of data or any other unfair method, strikes at the root of the selection process and is therefore required to be viewed with seriousness.

The Court, while exercising judicial review, cannot be oblivious to the larger public interest involved in preserving the purity of such examinations. It is in recognition of this public interest and the increasing complexity of malpractices in public examinations that the legislature enacted the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (“Unfair Means Act”), which defines unfair means in broad and inclusive terms as under:

In view of the above definition of unfair means, the material on record in the present case cannot be viewed in a narrow or isolated manner. The definition of unfair means is couched in broad and inclusive terms and is not confined only to cases where a candidate is physically caught copying in the examination hall or where there is direct ocular evidence of leakage of a question paper. It specifically takes within its fold unauthorised assistance to a candidate, manipulation of systems or processes, tampering with computer resources, deliberate violation of security measures, and manipulation in seating arrangements, allocation of dates or shifts to facilitate adoption of unfair means.

Accordingly, where the material placed on record discloses an unusual concentration of successful candidates from identified centres, similarity in response patterns, commonality in incorrect answers and other statistical improbabilities, such circumstances are required to be examined in the light of the broad legislative understanding of unfair means. The cumulative effect of these factors, if found credible on the material available, may legitimately indicate compromise of the examination process and cannot be rejected merely because the alleged malpractice does not fall within a conventional or visible form of copying.

Further, the recent amendment to the Unfair Means Act by way of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026, fortifies the legislative intent to deal with offences relating to unfair means in public examinations with greater severity. The amendment enhances the punishment for use of unfair means by individuals from imprisonment for a term of three to five years with fine up to ₹10,00,000/- to imprisonment for a term of five to ten years with fine up to ₹50,00,000/-. It further enhances the maximum fine imposable upon service providers from ₹1,00,00,000/- to ₹5,00,00,000/- and extends the period of debarment of such service providers from four years to eight years. In addition, where persons in charge of a service provider are found to be involved, the amendment increases the minimum term of imprisonment to five years and enhances the fine to ₹5,00,00,000/-. In cases involving organised crime, the minimum term of imprisonment is enhanced to seven years and the minimum fine is increased to ₹10,00,00,000/-.

The enhanced penal consequences reflect a legislative policy of adopting a stricter approach towards examination-related malpractices and of creating an effective deterrent against organised and sophisticated activities capable of eroding public confidence in public examinations. The amendment also recognises the need for institutional accountability and time-bound mechanisms for investigation and trial, thereby acknowledging that the use of unfair means may not be confined to individual candidates alone but may also involve third-party service providers, organised networks, or systemic compromise of examination infrastructure. This legislative approach reinforces the principle that allegations of malpractice in a computer-based public examination ought not to be discarded merely for want of conventional evidence of copying, or solely on the basis of an assertion by the examining agency that standard protocols were followed.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, and upon a cumulative consideration of the material placed on record, we are of the considered view that the examination conducted by the NTA, insofar as the selection to the Posts in question is concerned, cannot be held to have been conducted in free, fair and transparent manner.

The NTA, having conducted the examination in question on behalf of the University, stood in a position of trust and confidence and was required to act with complete transparency towards the University. Its role did not end with the mechanical declaration of results. Once the University raised a serious concern regarding the integrity of the examination process, the NTA was obliged to furnish to the University all relevant documents and data pertaining to the examination process, commencing from the issuance of the advertisement and allocation of centres till the conduct of the examination, preservation of examination records, evaluation, preparation of merit list and declaration of results. Such material would necessarily include centre-wise data, response sheets, audit trails, seating and shift allocation details, records relating to invigilation and surveillance, rough sheets where required to be preserved, reports of observers, material concerning the Exam Delivery Agency and any other record having a bearing on the fairness of the process.

The obligation of the NTA to maintain and disclose such records is of significance in a computer-based public examination, where the indicators of malpractice may not always be visible in the examination hall and may emerge only from post-examination data analysis. In such examinations, irregularities may be reflected through abnormal centre-wise outcomes, clustering of successful candidates, similarity of responses, commonality of incorrect answers, unusual attempt patterns or other digital and statistical indicators. Therefore, where the recruiting institution has a bona fide doubt regarding the sanctity of the examination, the examining agency cannot meet such doubt merely by asserting that standard protocols were followed. It must place complete and verifiable material before the recruiting institution so that the latter can take an informed decision consistent with its duty to ensure fair recruitment.

The appointments in question were to posts in the University and would have long-term consequences for its departments, laboratories and students. If material subsequently emerged which created a reasonable apprehension that the merit list did not reflect genuine merit, the University was not only entitled but duty-bound to pause the process and examine the matter before permitting joining. To hold otherwise would amount to compelling the employer to act upon a result which it reasonably considered doubtful, merely because the process had been outsourced to a specialised examining agency.

The contention of Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 that the nature of duties attached to the post of Laboratory Attendant primarily involves cleaning apparatus and maintaining equipment and, therefore, did not require the candidates to possess a higher level of academic knowledge, cannot be accepted. The issue is not whether the post required academic excellence beyond the prescribed eligibility criteria, but whether the marks obtained by the selected candidates in the written examination appeared to be consistent with the material subsequently noticed by the University.

Once the recruitment process itself prescribed a written examination containing questions relating to science, mathematics and other relevant subjects, the performance of candidates in that examination necessarily became a material indicator for preparation of the merit list. Candidates who secured exceptionally high marks in such an examination could not, at the same time, contend that basic academic knowledge was wholly irrelevant to the post merely because the day-to-day duties may include cleaning, handling or maintaining laboratory apparatus and equipment.

Further, the University did not seek to introduce a new eligibility condition or to conduct an interview contrary to the advertisement. The interaction with the candidates who reported for joining was relied upon only as a circumstance which prompted further scrutiny of the examination result. The concern of the University was heightened by the fact that several candidates, despite comparatively modest academic performance in earlier examinations, were shown to have secured marks exceeding 90% in a competitive examination with negative marking. Such a circumstance, standing alone, may not have justified an adverse conclusion; however, when read with abnormal centre-wise concentration, similarity of answers and commonality of incorrect responses, it became a relevant factor in assessing whether the declared merit list reflected genuine merit. The respondents’ submission, if accepted in absolute terms, would render the written examination itself insignificant, which is impermissible once the selection was admittedly based upon performance in that examination.

The ultimate effect of the Impugned Judgment, if sustained, would be that the University would be compelled to proceed with appointments in respect of non-teaching staff despite its serious and substantiated apprehension that the selection process stood vitiated using unfair means. Such a consequence would be contrary to the settled position that inclusion in a select list or issuance of an offer of appointment does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly where the employer acts bona fide based on relevant material to protect the integrity of the recruitment process. In public employment, the rights of selected candidates must be balanced against the larger public interest in ensuring that appointments are made only through a fair, transparent and credible selection process.

The NTA’s contention that the University’s data-analysis methodology was flawed cannot be accepted. The second Committee examined centre-wise data, the number of selected candidates, the total candidates appearing at the suspected centres, and the corresponding selection percentages. It also analysed response sheets through colour-coded visual inspection, similarity calculations and comparison of incorrect answers. The groups identified through similarity calculations substantially corresponded with those revealed through visual inspection, and a discernible pattern of incorrect answers emerged from the suspected centres. These findings furnished sufficient basis for the University to keep the joining of selected candidates in abeyance. The centre-wise concentration of successful candidates, the matching pattern of responses, the similarity in incorrect answers, the unusually high scores obtained by several candidates from the identified centres, and the other circumstances noticed by the Committees constituted by the University together furnished a cogent and reasonable basis for the University to conclude that the sanctity of the examination process had been compromised.

The University had expressly reserved the right to modify, withdraw or cancel any communication issued to a candidate in the event of any inadvertent mistake or irregularity in the selection process being detected at any stage, including after issuance of an appointment letter. In view of the said stipulation, the University was justified in keeping the offers of appointment in abeyance for the purpose of verifying the legality and integrity of the examination process. The issuance of offers of appointment, therefore, did not create any absolute or indefeasible right in favour of the selected candidates. Having regard to its obligation to preserve the purity of the recruitment process and to ensure that appointments are made only on merit, the University was entitled to defer the joining of the candidates pending such verification to safeguard the integrity of the selection process in light of the material which had come to notice of the University.

In Shankarsan Dash (supra), the Supreme Court authoritatively held that inclusion of a candidate’s name in a select list does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment, even where vacancies exist. Ordinarily, a recruitment notification is an invitation to eligible candidates to participate in the selection process, and selection or inclusion in the merit list does not create a vested right to appointment. The State or a public employer is under no legal obligation to fill up all or any of the advertised vacancies, provided the decision not to make appointments is taken bona fide, for valid reasons and in public interest. The said principle applies with full force to the present case, where the University deferred joining not for any extraneous purpose, but upon emergence of material raising serious doubts regarding the integrity of the examination process.

The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, failed to accord due weight in the Impugned Judgment to the principles enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in Manish Dabas (supra) and Varun Bharadwaj (supra). In both these decisions, this Court recognised that, in matters involving suspected resort to unfair means in objective or multiple-choice examinations, direct evidence establishing the precise mode or manner of malpractice may not invariably be available. It was held that where expert examination or statistically supported analysis of the primary material discloses an unusual, inexplicable and recurring pattern of matching responses, particularly commonality in incorrect answers, such material may constitute a legally sufficient basis for drawing a reasonable inference that unfair means were adopted. Once the pattern disclosed by the primary material is of such a nature that it cannot reasonably be explained as a matter of chance, coincidence or ordinary examination behaviour, the conclusion regarding adoption of unfair means can safely be arrived. The aforesaid decisions having attained finality, the principles laid down therein were required to be applied to the present case with due regard to the nature of the examination, the material relied upon by the University and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.

In Arabinda Rabha (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that a selection process may be cancelled, or appropriate corrective action may be taken, where larger public interest so warrants and where the material available indicates serious irregularities affecting the fairness of the process. It was further held that where the decision of the authority is founded upon relevant considerations and bears a reasonable nexus with the object of preserving the purity of public recruitment, the High Court would not be justified in interfering merely because the consequence may operate harshly upon some selected candidates. The proportionality of such a decision must be assessed in the context of the nature and extent of the irregularities detected. Applying the said principle, the University’s decision to keep the joining in abeyance pending verification of the selection process cannot be characterised as disproportionate or arbitrary, particularly when the material disclosed serious doubts as to whether the declared merit list reflected genuine merit.

The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sachin Kumar (supra), wherein it has been held therein that, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court does not sit in appeal over the sufficiency of the material on the basis whereof the competent authority has formed its opinion, unless the decision is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness, perversity, unreasonableness or disproportionality. The said decision recognises that where the nature of the wrongdoing is such that it permeates the recruitment process and seriously impinges upon the legitimacy of the examination, the employer or recruiting authority is entitled to take appropriate corrective measures to preserve the integrity of public employment. The principle which emerges is that the Court is required to examine the decision-making process and the existence of relevant material, and not to substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority merely because another view may be possible.

In view of the aforesaid analysis and the settled legal position governing the scope and contours of judicial intervention in matters concerning public recruitment examinations as discussed above and in the Impugned Judgement, we respectfully disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that, in the absence of direct evidence of malpractice or a prior complaint, the security protocols stated to have been implemented by the NTA were sufficient to displace the specific analytical findings recorded by the University.

We are of the considered view that in matters concerning recruitment through public examinations, the Court is not required to undertake an appreciation of evidence as in a criminal trial, nor is it necessary to insist upon proof of actual malpractice by direct evidence alone. Where the employer, upon examination of relevant data and based on identifiable parameters, reaches a bona fide conclusion that the integrity of the process stands impaired, the scope of judicial review is confined to examining whether such conclusion is arbitrary, perverse, mala fide or unsupported by material. Upon consideration of the material placed on record by the University, we find that the circumstances, taken cumulatively, indicate that the examination process had been compromised. The convergence of multiple factors, including abnormal centre-wise concentration, similarity in response patterns, matching incorrect answers and unusually high scores from identified centres, cannot be treated as a series of innocuous coincidences in a single recruitment examination.

We are, therefore, unable to sustain the Impugned Judgment. The Notifications dated 25.08.2023 and 29.08.2023, whereby the University had put the joining of the selected candidates on hold pending examination of the matter, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge requiring the University to proceed with document verification, appointment and joining of Respondent Nos. 1 to 76, together with consequential benefits, are liable to be set aside. The prayers sought in the Writ Petitions stand rejected.

Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.