In an original application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Jammu Bench) (CAT) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quashing of the selection list issued pursuant to the advertisement dated 12-03-2013 by the respondents for the post of Fireman for being illegal as the question paper was available in public domain before the exam was conducted, a Coram of Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member (J) and Mr. Ram Mohan Johri, Member (A) dismissed the petition for being without merit.
After the advertisement was issued, applications were invited for filling up the posts of Fireman and Fireman Driver. Being eligible, the applicant submitted his candidature for the post of Fireman and participated in the selection process. However, the recruitment process had a chequered history as the government had terminated the initial process and the Jammu & Kashmir High Court interfered with the same by a judgment dated 02-11-2017 while leaving it open for the competent authority to undertake the selection process afresh.
Hence, a de novo recruitment process was undertaken. However, the written examination pursuant to this process, held in December 2018 was questioned before the High Court on allegations of mass copying and was ultimately cancelled by a government order dated 01-08-2019, with a fresh written examination being ordered. The fresh examination was conducted on 20-09-2020, the select list was declared on 03-10-2020, and the order according sanction to the temporary appointment of the selected candidates was issued on 04-10-2020.
The applicant’s grievance was that the written examination was not constituted in a fair and transparent manner and that the question paper along with its answers were allegedly being circulated through WhatsApp before the commencement of the exam. The applicant contended that the unusually high number of candidates selected from District Budgam who found place in the open merit selection list, considered along with the alleged circulation of the question paper, raised a doubt about the sanctity of the exam.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Directs MCD to Identify Vending Site for Disabled Tea Vendor in Vasant Kunj
CAT found that the controversy raised in the present application was not res integra as the same recruitment process had been subjected to judicial scrutiny by the Tribunal. It was stated that even the principal foundation of challenge in those proceedings were substantially identical to the challenge raised in the present petition. It was stated that the Tribunal had considered the rival contentions on the alleged pre-examination leakage while adjudicating the above-mentioned matter and that the statistics furnished by the respondents for the allegation regarding large number of candidates being selected from a particular district had remained unrebutted and were held insufficient to establish that the selection process was riddled with corrupt practices.
Finding no reason to arrive at a different conclusion, the Court stated that a statistical circumstance, without reliable material establishing its nexus with manipulation of the examination, cannot by itself constitute proof of malpractice. It was held that the challenge based upon different cut-off marks for Fireman and Fireman Driver was equally untenable since the Tribunal had earlier specifically accepted the explanation that 144 candidates participated in the re-exam for Fireman Driver whereas 6488 candidates appeared for Fireman and that different degree of competition naturally resulted in different cut-offs.
Further, the Court held that mere suspicion, conjecture or isolated irregularity cannot furnish sufficient basis for invalidating the candidature and selection of a large number of persons who have participated in the process and that there must be cogent material showing that the illegality was of such magnitude that it destroyed the credibility of the selection process as a whole. It was noted that even if some flaws are assumed to be correct, it had not been established in the earlier proceedings that the irregularities were all-pervasive and beyond correction so as to justify scrapping the entire recruitment process.
Noting that no distinguishing material had been brought in the present case that could warrant intervention and that the grounds in the present petition had already been examined by the Tribunal. It was also stated that issuance of the order dated 04-10-2025 immediately after declaration of the selection list also did not establish fraud as administrative expedition cannot be equated with illegality unless some statutory requirement is shown to have been violated or the haste is supported by other reliable evidence demonstrating mala fides.
The Court stated that judicial discipline and consistency require that substantially identical disputes arising out of the same selection process should ordinarily receive the same treatment unless a material distinguishing feature is demonstrated. Further, the Court observed that recruitment to public posts must not only be fair and transparent but must also inspire confidence amongst the participating candidates. It was stated that authorities conducting public exams are required to adopt robust safeguards due to rapid advancement of technology as well as instant messaging platforms.
Hence, the Court directed the competent authorities to ensure that in all future recruitment examinations, an effective and technologically secure mechanism is put in place for maintaining confidentiality of question papers, secured transmission and custody thereof, controlled access, adequate CCTV surveillance, digital audit trails and prompt examination of any complaint regarding leakage or electronic circulation of examination material.
Thus, the application was dismissed for being devoid of merit and substantially covered by earlier decisions of the Tribunal.
