The Delhi High Court has held that where the terminal to which a candidate was shifted does not match any of the compromised terminals identified by the enquiry Committee itself, the allegation of unfair means based solely on terminal shifting cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Order that had set aside the cancellation of Himanshi’s candidature and her 7-year debarment from SSC examinations, holding that the punitive action was unsustainable on facts and in law.
The most decisive factor was the mismatch between the MAC address of the terminal to which Himanshi was shifted, and the four compromised terminals at Avirat listed in Annexure 5 to the Committee Report, none of which matched her shifted terminal, pointed out the Court, while finding that that the Committee’s findings were entirely tentative, employing expressions such as ‘seems’, ‘appears’, ‘probable’ and ‘suspect’, with no conclusive finding of unfair means against Himanshi, rendering penalisation on such presumptuous observations legally unsustainable.
The Court said that the material inconsistencies between the Committee Report and the SSC’s own rejoinder affidavit regarding the number of questions attempted and time taken, coupled with the absence of CCTV footage, remote access software, or any identified person operating from outside, further discredited the allegation. The Court also clarified that the SSC’s decision to subject only centres with more than five cases of de-mapping to scrutiny cannot be characterised as arbitrary, as the examining authority retains latitude to determine the scope of enquiry, provided there is an intelligible differentia guiding the decision.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar observed that while judicial restraint is generally advised when reviewing decisions of expert Committees examining unfair means in examinations, judicial review is not irremediably foreclosed. The Court noted that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is inappropriate where individual candidates are identified for punitive action, as the burden on the authorities to establish unfair means against each candidate becomes more onerous.
The Court found several glaring discrepancies in Himanshi’s case. Most critically, the rejoinder affidavit filed by the SSC identified the MAC address of the terminal to which Himanshi was shifted as D4BED9CCAA3B, but Annexure 5 to the Committee Report listed only four compromised terminals, none of which matched Himanshi’s shifted terminal. The Court further observed that the Committee’s findings were tentative, employing expressions such as ‘seems’, ‘appears’, ‘probable’ and ‘suspect’, with no conclusive finding against Himanshi.
There were also material inconsistencies between the Committee Report and the rejoinder affidavit regarding the number of questions attempted and time taken. No CCTV footage was available for Himanshi, no remote access software was found on her terminal, no person operating from outside was identified, and there was no finding that her original terminal was later used by another candidate. The Court also noted that over 44,000 candidates across India were de-mapped, making terminal shifting a routine occurrence.
Briefly, the dispute arises from the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination 2019 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for recruitment to posts of Lower Division Clerk, Junior Secretariat Assistant, Postal Assistant, Sorting Assistant and Data Entry Operator. The respondent, Himanshi, an OBC candidate, appeared in the Tier I Computer Based Examination on 18 March 2020 at Avirat Education Society, Shivalik Nagar, Haridwar, and scored 199.21 normalised marks out of 200, clearing the OBC cut-off. She thereafter cleared Tier II, Tier III, and attended document verification on 22 March 2022.
When the final result was declared on 10 May 2022, the results of 104 candidates, including Himanshi, were withheld on the allegation of use of unfair means. A Committee constituted by the SSC examined CCTV footage and log trails of 90 candidates and found 70 suspects and 20 candidates clear. A show cause notice was issued to Himanshi, and her candidature was cancelled and she was debarred from SSC examinations for 7 years. Himanshi approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which allowed her application.
