The Allahabad High Court has clarified that if an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systematic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of entire selection process, and there would be no harm if the result is cancelled in its entirety, though an attempt can be made to segregate tainted and untainted candidates. The Court, however, cautioned that the standard of inquiry should be fair investigation. It is not necessary that malpractice is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and can be justified by probability test also.
The High Court thus ruled that a candidate has no indefeasible right to be selected or to force the State to conclude an examination process which was tainted since papers of written examination were leaked and candidates were benefited also. It is the fairness which is the utmost object to conduct any examination and under no circumstance it can be permitted to compromise.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that the written examination was conducted for 910 posts of Assistant Professors for 33 different Subjects at 52 different Centres in six Districts of State of Uttar Pradesh. Comparing to other examinations of Pan India, it was an examination conducted within a very narrow campus. If irregularities were committed even by few candidates, it would be a case to quash entire examination, subject to inquiry and supported materials.
The Bench observed that two First Information Reports were lodged and after investigation, two charge sheets were filed against four accused persons. Therefore, there were substantial evidence and material with State that paper of written examination for at least five subjects were leaked and sold to beneficiaries. The investigation has prima facie concluded that at least 19 candidates were definitely benefited. Thus, the submission that allegations in First Information Reports were not sufficient to extent that no irregularity was committed, cannot be accepted since after investigation two charge sheets were already filed under Sections 112, 308(5) and 318(4) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.
The Bench took note of material brought on record by State-Respondents and Commission that a proper consideration was made at higher level of State on basis of a report of STF that it was a case of systematic irregularities and wide spread unfair means were used, since different papers were leaked and sold to beneficiaries, i.e., candidates. It is not a case where the State has not conducted any inquiry, rather inquiry has contemplated in lodging of two First Information Reports and after investigation two charge sheets have also been filed.
Further, the Bench observed that the standard of inquiry should be fair investigation. It is not necessary that malpractice is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, not only two First Information Reports were lodged but after investigation two charge sheets were filed that at least 19 candidates were got benefited. A possibility is not ruled out that papers were leaked to other candidates also and that they may also get benefit of it, to be included in select list. The impugned decision is, therefore, justified by probability test also.
Going ahead, the Bench observed that a decision to cancel result of written examination was based on a detail inquiry, outcome of investigation and a specific proof that at least about 19 candidates were benefited as well as that process of present examination was not concluded entirely since only result of written examination was declared and process of interview was not commenced. It is not a case where entire selection process was already concluded. Therefore, petitioners cannot claim that they were adversely affected being finally selected since they still have to go through rigor of interview.
Lastly, the Bench took note of a settled legal position that a candidate has no indefeasible right to be selected or to force the State to conclude an examination process which was tainted since papers of written examination were leaked and candidates were benefited also. It is the fairness which is the utmost object to conduct any examination and under no circumstance it can be permitted to compromise.
Briefly, the petitioners participated in a recruitment process initiated in pursuance of Advertisement No. 51 of year 2022 to fill up 910 posts of Assistant Professors in different aided non-Government Post Graduate Colleges. Later, the U.P. Education Service Selection Commission issued a schedule for written examination which was held on 16th / 17th April, 2025 in two shifts at 52 different Examination Centres in six Districts for 33 different Subjects.
Immediately after the written examinations, two First Information Reports were lodged at Police Stations Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow East and Chinhat, Lucknow East, against four persons, alleging that accused was involved in providing question papers of written examination to the participants after taking huge money. In pursuance of the FIR, investigation was commenced and a decision was taken to commence evaluation process in pursuance of a Three Members Committee’s report. Thereafter, the Commission issued the result of the written examination, and according to the petitioners, they stood in merit in the result and were waiting for the interview schedule.
Subsequently, a notice was issued by the Secretary, U.P. Education Services Selection Commission, Prayagraj, whereby it was communicated that the result issued on Sep 04, 2025 was cancelled and a fresh schedule for written examination was published. A report was submitted by the Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order/ S.T.F., Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, which stated that upon analysing the mobile numbers of arrested accused Mahboob Ali, Baijnath Pal, and Vinay Pal, 21 suspicious mobile numbers were identified. Matching this data with the Commission’s records revealed the roll numbers and information of 19 candidates, all of whom were found to have passed in their respective subjects.
The arrested accused Mahboob Ali disclosed during interrogation that he was deployed as the confidential assistant to the Chairman of the Commission at the relevant time and maintained these papers during the paper moderation and construction process. The papers provided by Mahboob Ali for money were not fake but were prepared from the questions of the original paper.
After investigation, two charge sheets were filed under Sections 112, 308(5) and 318(4) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), i.e., for offence of “petty organized crime”; “extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt”; and, “cheating”.
Appearances:
Senior Advocates Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Siddharth Khare, for the Petitioner
Advocate Gagan Mehta, for the Respondent
