Virendra Singh vs Staff Selection Commission & Ors.

“8.1

To quash & set aside the final result of dated 15.12.2021 (List-II) in respect of applicant herein whereby the result of applicant (within 625 candidates) have been kept withheld on the ground of "for further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair means" in selection process to the post of Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination-2020 and notice dated 6.4.2022 whereby the candidature of 135 candidates has been provisionally cleared (out of 625 candidates whose result have been withheld vide result dated 15.12.2021) to an extent whereby the result of applicant has not been cleared and to further direct the respondents that result of the applicant be declared forthwith and applicant be given appointment to the post of Constable(Exe) as per merit with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances. Or

(ii)

Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.”

7. ANALYSIS :

“9.1

The issue before this Tribunal is whether the results of the candidates can be withheld on account of the ongoing investigation and the pendency of the criminal trial, and if so, what relief(s), if any, they are entitled to.

9.2

It is not in dispute that the present controversy arises out of the recruitment process for the post of Constable (Executive) Male/Female in Delhi Police Examination–2020 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. The applicants, who fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria, qualified the Computer Based Examination as well as the Physical Endurance & Measurement Test and secured marks above the cut-off. However, while declaring the final result on 15.12.2021, the SSC published a separate List–II comprising 625 candidates, including the applicants, whose results were withheld for “further scrutiny regarding suspected use of unfair means.” No specific allegations or material indicating individual misconduct were communicated to the applicants, and representations as well as RTI applications elicited only general responses that the matter was under examination.During the pendency of O.A. No. 635/2022, the SSC, by notice dated 06.04.2022, cleared the candidature of 135 out of the 625 withheld candidates, resulting in appointment of some of the original applicants. The remaining candidates, including the present applicants, continued to face withholding of their results. The respondents justify the impugned action by placing reliance on FIR No. 103/2022 dated 09.06.2022, registered pursuant to scrutiny conducted by a committee on the basis of CCTV footage and computer log trails, which allegedly revealed technical anomalies such as dual MAC IDs, dual IP addresses, forced de-mapping and abnormal answering patterns. On this basis, 490 candidates were flagged and their details forwarded to the Delhi Police (Crime Branch) for investigation, and it is contended that appointment cannot be considered until the investigation attains finality, having regard to the requirement of integrity in the police force. The applicants dispute the respondents’ stand, contending that the allegations are based on technical assumptions rather than individualized evidence. According to them, factors such as MAC IDs, IP addresses and de-mapping are entirely within the control of examination centres and IT personnel, and allegations of rapid answering are explainable by legitimate examination strategies. It is their case that no incriminating material was recovered from any applicants, no show-cause notice was issued at the relevant stage, and the criteria for clearing 135 candidates while continuing to withhold others has not been disclosed. The applicants further contended that mere pendency of investigation, without attribution of specific misconduct, cannot justify indefinite withholding of results or denial of appointment, and that reliance on post facto parameters not contemplated under the examination scheme is impermissible.

9.3

It is not in dispute between the parties that an FIR has been registered, pursuant to which a charge-sheet as well as two supplementary charge-sheets have been filed. The Court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, and summons have been issued. Most of the candidates/applicants have been granted bail, while a few remain otherwise. Several of the applicants have preferred petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings, some of which have been dismissed at the relevant stage, while a few such petitions are stated to be pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

9.4

In Civil Appeal Nos. 639–640 of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5785– 5786 of 2020, titled Sachin Kumar & Ors. vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors., decided on 03.03.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:—

“33.

In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not re-invent the wheel. Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon or cross-over into the domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum where the authority conducting the examination or convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of mal-practices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in the process who appear at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrong-doing from others who have adhered to 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 those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrong-doers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them for their 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 the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field. *** *** ***

37.

On the other hand, the judgment of a two judge Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs. Rajesh P U Puthuvalnikathu(2003) 7 SCC 285 involved a situation where a selection list consequent to a written examination, interview and physical fitness test for filling up the posts of constables in the CBI was cancelled, due to allegations of favouritism on the part of the officers conducting the physical efficiency test and irregularities in the written examination. A challenge to the cancellation failed before the Tribunal upon which proceedings were initiated before the High Court. A Committee had been appointed by the Director, CBI, which upon meticulous examination found that 31 candidates who were otherwise ineligible were included in the selection list and an equal number of eligible candidates was ousted. In this backdrop the High Court found that there was no justification to cancel the entire selection when the impact of irregularities which had crept into the evaluation of merits could be identified specifically and was found on verifying the records to have resulted in 31 candidates being selected undeservedly. Upholding the view of the High Court, a two judge Bench of this Court held:

9

“6.

[...] In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all- pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational”.

In para 40, the Apex Court observed

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

“(i)

Cases where the “event” has been investigated:

10

(aa)

Union Territory of Chandigarh v.v. Dilbagh Singh [(1993) 1 SCC 154: 1993 SCC (L&S) 144 : (1993) 23 ATC 431] , SCC at paras 3 and 7.

(bb)

Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 165: 1994 SCC (L&S) 937 : (1994) 27 ATC 547] , SCC at paras 12, 15 and 22.

(cc)

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

(dd)

Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India [(1996) 10 SCC 742: 1997 SCC (L&S) 364] ,SCC at para 4.

(ee)

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

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

(iiii)

Cases where CBI inquiry took place and was completed or a preliminary investigation was concluded:

(aa)

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]

(cc)

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

9.5

In Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9586 of 2024), titled State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors., decided on 03.04.2025, while dealing with the issue of illegal appointments, reference was made in paragraph 18 to the decision in Vanshika Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 9 SCC 743, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed as under:—

“…………a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the extent of unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the tainted 11 candidates from the untainted ones. The court must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record, including investigative reports, supports this conclusion. There must be at least some evidence for the court to reach such a conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need not be unduly strict. Specifically, the material on record need not point to a single, definitive conclusion that malpractice occurred at a systemic level. Nevertheless, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise, as reflected in the material before the court.

It was further observed that

19.

The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:

* When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity.

*The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable.

*Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process.

12 *Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale. “ It was also opined that “In our opinion, the issues of authenticity of the data viz. the mismatch between the datasets and the admissibility of the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, need not be decided in these proceedings, as it falls under the purview of the criminal court. However, suffice it to state that the Evidence Act does not strictly apply to the proceedings in a Writ Court, and the decision is rendered based on the evidence and material on record. Further, the issue involved in the present case is different and one relating to the purity and sanctity of the selection process. “ 9.6 The present case also necessitates consideration of the doctrine of severability and the requirement of individualized scrutiny. The respondents had three possible courses of action available to them: to cancel the entire selection process, to subject the allegedly tainted candidates to a re-test, or to withhold the results of such candidates. The respondents have chosen the last course as a measure of last resort, while segregating the remaining candidates, an approach stated to have been adopted in the interest of all affected parties.

9.7

A strong reliance has been placed on a recent decision, Tanu Chaudhary (supra) more particularly the reasoning arrived to query 5 and 6 by the applicants. We find the following fine distinguishing features when applied to the facts of the present case:

(i)

The present case is of withholding the results, not canceling/ rejecting the candidature itself.

(ii)

The FIR was lodged; whereas in the present case, not only has an FIR been lodged, but it has culiminated into filing of a charge sheet and two supplementary charge sheets. Furthermore, the court of competent jurisdiction has taken cognizance of the offenses under Section 419/420/ 120-B IPC and 66-DIT Act and summons have been issued. Most of the candidates/applicants 13 are on bail except for a few. Many such applicants have preferred petitions for quashing under Section 482 CR.P.C., which have been dismissed at the relevant stage. A few such petitions have also been filed and are, since then, pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

(iii)

No procedure was followed. However, the present case is based on a report of the committee and its recommendations, whereas the Tanu Chaudhary (supra) proceeded on the premise that there was no information or complaint received regarding the use of unfair means.

(iv)

There has been segregation of purportedly tainted candidates and untainted candidates.

(v)

The applicants herein have participated in all levels of examination, whereas in said case, the candidates were not allowed to participate at the PET level.

(vi)

Tanu Chaudhary (supra) pertained to the interpretation of UP Rules, whereas the present case relates to the scheme of examination, more particularly clause:

(vii)

Action is not based on mere suspicion but on prima facie investigation and evidence culled therefrom; it need not be decided in these proceedings, as it falls under the purview of the criminal court.

(viii)

Any observations in these proceedings may result in giving an opinion on the prima facie evidence, which has yet to be considered by the criminal court, causing prejudice and prejudging the issue, thereby affecting the outcome.

9.8

The case of Keshav Kumar Chahar (supra) also does not help the applicants, as the said case is premised on the fact that no incriminating material was found therein.

9.9

Exam malpractice is not a novel phenomenon; it occurs due to systemic gaps, which are increasingly exploited in innovative ways in line with technological advancements. The Radhakrishnan Committee, constituted in June 2024 following the NEET-UG examination paper leak, was tasked by the Ministry of Education with reviewing the examination system, recommending reforms, strengthening data security protocols, and improving the structure 14 and functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA). The Committee identified several key factors contributing to the rise of malpractice, including weaknesses in exam administration, technological vulnerabilities, and insufficient monitoring mechanisms.

(i)

Firstly, the stakes have never been higher. Entrance exams like medical and engineering entrances decide the futures of millions. With limited seats in top colleges, competition is brutal. This pressure forces students, sometimes even parents, to consider unethical ways to secure admission.

(ii)

Secondly, there’s the problem of weak monitoring. Many exams are still conducted with minimal security checks, outdated invigilation methods, and an over-reliance on third-party agencies. This makes question paper leaks and inside jobs easier.

(iii)

Thirdly, technology has also changed the game. Exam fraud rings are now hacking online tests, selling hidden communication devices, and even using AI tools to outsmart detection. This isn't just happening in India. Globally, online exams have been targeted by cybercriminals who exploit weak digital infrastructure. The paper leaks and the exam scams are proof that cheating has moved beyond the individual and is now a full-fledged industry. Unless preventive measures match this level of sophistication, exam malpractices will keep evolving. (Ref: Reformation of National Common Entrance Testing ( Report Oct 2024)

9.10

We may say that in the present case, the applicants are faced by a situation where only the candidature has been withheld, not the candidature itself. Since the criminal trial is pending, the relief(s) sought in the Original application(s) shall not be appropriate at this stage. Allegations regarding manipulation of computer networks, such as forceful de-mapping, the use of dual MAC IDs and IP addresses, and other material cited in the investigation, have yet to be legally established against the applicants. The applicants cannot be expected to dispel such suspicions in the present proceedings, as the standard of proof applicable in criminal matters is not equatable to these proceedings. The entire premise of the case presently rests on the outcome of 15 the criminal proceedings; once the applicants successfully overcome that hurdle, they will be entitled to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.

9.11

It is well-settled law that participation in a selection process does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. A candidate must not only be meritorious but also satisfy criteria of suitability, integrity, and antecedents, particularly for posts in uniformed and disciplined forces. The record demonstrates that the respondents did not act on conjecture or whim. A high-level Scrutiny Committee was constituted, which examined objective technical material, including CCTV footage and click-byby-click log trails. Based on this scrutiny, 135 candidates were found free from suspicion, while the remaining 490 candidates were flagged for further investigation. Accordingly, the decision-making process cannot be characterised as arbitrary or capricious. Following the Committee’s report, a detailed criminal investigation was undertaken by the Crime Branch, which has progressed substantially: several venue owners and co-conspirators have been arrested, charge-sheets filed against numerous candidates, and cognizance has been taken by the competent criminal court. The Hon’ble High Court has also declined to quash the FIR. These developments indicate that the suspicions are supported by tangible material and are not illusory.

9.12

The argument that candidates lack control over technical infrastructure cannot be accepted as an absolute proposition at this stage. The investigation has revealed multiple modes of malpractice, including remote access, screen sharing, provision of answer keys, and signalling, often with the active involvement of venue staff. Whether a particular applicant was complicit is a matter to be adjudicated in criminal proceedings and cannot be pre-judged by this Tribunal. With respect to claims of discrimination based on the clearance of 135 candidates, the classification is founded on intelligible differentia arising from technical scrutiny and investigative inputs. Those cleared were found not to be linked with suspicious patterns, whereas the remaining candidates were. At this stage, the Tribunal cannot act as an appellate authority over such expert evaluation.

16

9.13

Reliance on earlier decisions directing provisional appointments is misplaced in the present factual matrix. Each case must be assessed on its own facts. Here, the scale of the alleged malpractice, the nature of the post, and the advanced stage of criminal proceedings distinguish the matter. Granting provisional appointment to candidates facing serious allegations of cheating and conspiracy would undermine public confidence and contravene settled principles governing recruitment to police forces.

9.14

It is also well-settled that Courts and Tribunals should exercise restraint in interfering with ongoing investigations, particularly where specialised agencies are involved and criminal courts are already seized of the matter.”

8. CONCLUSION :