Chattisgarh High Court
Manish Kumar Yadav vs Food Corporation Of India on 25 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:19197
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 969 of 2023
Order reserved on 23/01/2026
Order delivered on 25/04/2026
1 - Manish Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hori Lal Yadav, Aged About 43 Years R/o
Quarter No. 5/63, Raj Kishore Nagar, Chandan, Mopka, Bilaspur District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Khem Prasad S/o Hemlal, Aged About 43 Years C/o Kewal Ram Verma,
Sunder Vihar Near Nalanda English Med. School Fool Ki Badi, I E Bhili S.O, I
E Bhilai Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
3 - Laxmi Kant Dubey S/o Gunakar Prasad Dubey Aged About 27 Years R/o
House No. 73 Block No. 7 Housing Board Colony, Kabir Nagar, Raipur,
Tatibandh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Nilesh Singh S/o Shri Jaipal Singh, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
Janji, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5 - Ramashankar S/o Shri Ramsanehi Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o 63
Sahu Para Sakari Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioners
versus
1 - Food Corporation Of India, through its General Manager, Regional Office,
VED Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.)
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed by
VED PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.04.25
20:09:59 +0530 2 - Deputy General Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office,
2
Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Assistant General Manager (Recruitment), Food Corporation Of India,
Regional Officer, Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4 - M/s MEL Training And Assessment Limited (Previously Maya
Entertainment Ltd In Which Attest Testing Services Ltd Got Merged) Having
Its Registered Office At A-65 Midc Marol Andheri (East), Mumbai 400093,
Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Yogesh L. Kulkarni
--- Respondents
WPS No. 3788 of 2023
Jaiyan Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ram Pratap Meena Aged About 30 Years R/o
Village Lanki Post Devti, Tahsil Rajgarh, District : Alwar, Rajasthan
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Food Corporation Of India Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 – Deputy General Manager Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 – Assistant General Manager (Recruitment) Food Corporation Of India,
Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4 – Assistant Director And Scientist C (Documents) Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, Directorate Of Forensic Science Service, Ministry Of Home
Affairs, Government Of India, Ramnathpur, Hyderabad- 500013.
— Respondents
3
WPS No. 1144 of 2024
Harikesh Meena S/o Shri Jayanarayan Meena Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Pahadi Miran, Post Manchi, Tahsil And District – Karauli, Rajasthan.
(Roll No. 12142125364)
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Food Corporation Of India Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa
Mova, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
2 – Deputy General Manager Food Corporation Of India Regional Office
Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Mowa, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 – Assistant General Manager Food Corporation Of India Regional Office
Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Mowa, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 – Food Corporation Of India Headquarters 16-20 Barakhamba Lane, New
Delhi.
5 – M/s M.E.L. Training And Assessment Limited (Previously Maya
Entertainment Ltd. In Which Attest Testing Services Ltd. Got Merged)
Through Assistant Manager Legal Mr. Yogesh Laxman Kulkarni (Authorized
Representative), Having Its Registered Office At A-65 M.I.D.C. Marol Andheri
(East) Mumbai.
— Respondents
WPS No. 1143 of 2024
Harikesh Meena Alias Harkesh Meena S/o Shri Siyram Meena Aged About
32 Years R/o Village Pahadi Miran, Post Manchi, Tahsil And District-Karauli,
Rajasthan (Roll No. 12142125363)
—Petitioner
Versus
1 – Food Corporation Of India Regional Office, Regional Office, Vidhan
Sabha Road, Kapa Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
4
2 – Deputy General Manager Food Corporation Of India Regional Office,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Mowa, Raipur, District-Raipur (Cg)
3 – Assistant General Manager Food Corporation Of India Regional Office,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa Mowa, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg)
4 – Food Corporation Of India Headquarters, 16- 20 Barakhamba Lane, New
Delhi.
5 – M/s Mel Training And Assessment Limited (Previously Maya
Entertainment Ltd. In Which Attest Testing Services Ltd. Got Merged),
Through Assistant Manager Legal Mr. Yogesh Laxman Kulkarni (Authorized
Representative), Having Its Registered Office At A-65 Midc Marol Andheri
(East) Mumbai
— Respondents
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For respective Petitioners : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali (through virtual
mode), Mr. Topilal Bareth, Mr. Bharat
Sharma, Mr. Vijay Chawla and Ms. Ankita
Gouraha Advocates
For respective Respondents : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. R.S. Patel and Mr. Ashish
Sahu, Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocates
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
C.A.V. Order
1. All these writ petitions have a common issue, and therefore, they are
being heard and decided together.
2. The W.P.S. No. 969/2023 has been filed by the petitioners against the
impugned information dated 12-01-2023 published in a daily
newspaper, whereby the recruitment/selection process on the 114
posts of Watchman with the respondent department has been
5
cancelled after about 05 years of written examination. They prayed the
following reliefs in the writ petition:-
“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to
the case of the petitioners.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction and quash the impugned information
dated 12.01.2023 published in view of the
direction of the respondent No. 1 (Annexure P/1).
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction and direct the respondent authorities i.e
Respondent No. 2 to declare the results of the
written examination of the Watchman after
quashing of the impugned order.
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction and direct the respondent authorities to
take all consequential steps to make the
appointments of the petitioners on the post of
Watchman in the event of their selection after the
declaration of results.
6
10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction and restrain the Respondent No. 1 from
issuing fresh advertisement for recruitment of
Watchman as only the declaration of result and
publication of select/merit list of candidates is to
be finalized by the respondent authorities for the
recruitment process for the year 2017.
10.6 Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be
granted.”
3. The W.P.S. No. 3788/2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the
report of the Committee dated 28-02-2020, and also the opinion of the
CFSL report, whereby the signature of the petitioner is found to be not
matched with the signature of his answer sheet, and also the said
cancellation of the recruitment process of 114 posts of Watchman with
the department, and prayed for the following reliefs in the writ petition:-
“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to
the case of the petitioners.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction and quash the committee report dated
728.02.2020 and the opinion of CFSL Hyderabad
(Annexure P/1).
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction and quash the impugned information
dated 12.01.2023 published in view of the
direction of the respondent No. 1 (Annexure P/2).
10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction and direct the respondent authorities i.e
Respondent No. 2 to declare the results of the
written examination of the Watchman after
quashing of the impugned order.
10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction and direct the respondent authorities to
take all consequential steps to make the
appointments of the petitioners on the post of
Watchman in the event of their selection after the
declaration of results.
10.6 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/
direction and restrain the Respondent No. 1 from
issuing fresh advertisement for recruitment of
8Watchman as only the declaration of result and
publication of select/merit list of candidates is to
be finalized by the respondent authorities for the
recruitment process for the year 2017.
10.7 Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be
granted.”
4. The W.P.S. No. 1143/2024 has been filed by the petitioner against the
cancellation of recruitment of 114 posts of Watchman with the
respondent department by the newspaper publication dated 12-02-
2023 and also to declare the result, and prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“1. That, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire records pertaining to the case
of petitioner.
2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/
orders quashing the impugned order/ information/
communication dated 12.01.2023 (Annex.P/1)
published by the respondent authorities.
3. That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased
to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/
directions, order/orders directing the respondent
9authorities, respondent No. 2 to declare the
results of the written examination for the post of
Watchman pertaining to the advertisement No.
Estt.IV/DR-Watchman/01/2017.
4. That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased
to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/
directions, order/orders directing the respondent
authorities to take all necessary steps to make
the appointment of the petitioner for the post of
watchman in the event of his selection after the
declaration of the results.
5. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit
and proper in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case.”
5. The W.P.S. No. 1144/2024 has been filed by the petitioner against the
cancellation of the recruitment/selection process of 114 posts of
Watchman with the respondent department, direction to the
respondent authorities to declare the result and prayed for the
following reliefs:-
1. That, the Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire records pertaining to the case
of petitioner.
10
2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/
orders quashing the impugned order/ information/
communication dated 12.01.2023 (Annex.P/1)
published by the respondent authorities.
3. That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased
to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/
directions, order/orders directing the respondent
authorities, respondent No. 2 to declare the
results of the written examination for the post of
Watchman pertaining to the advertisement No.
Estt.IV/DR-Watchman/01/2017.
4. That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased
to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/
directions, order/orders directing the respondent
authorities to take all necessary steps to make
the appointment of the petitioner for the post of
watchman in the event of his selection after the
declaration of the results.
5. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased
to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit
and proper in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case.”
11
W.P.S. NO. 969/2023
6. The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that the Food
Corporation of India (hereinafter called as “FCI”), Chhattisgarh Region,
initiated a recruitment process for the post of Watchman through an
external agency, M/s Attest Testing Services Ltd., Mumbai. The
respondents issued Advertisement No. Estt.IV/DR-Watchman/
01/2017, published in the Employment News dated 19-25.08.2017,
inviting online applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to
the post of Watchman in FCI, Chhattisgarh Region. The written
examination for the post of Watchman was conducted on 24.09.2017,
as scheduled in the advertisement, through the said recruitment
agency, M/s Attest Testing Services Ltd., Mumbai. Upon evaluation,
457 candidates, including the petitioners, were shortlisted for the
Physical Endurance Test (PET), and the list of such candidates was
published in June 2018. The PET was conducted on 18.08.2018 and
19.08.2018 at Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur
(Chhattisgarh). After completion of the PET, the recruitment agency,
vide communication dated 17.09.2018, reported that 308 candidates
had appeared, out of whom 160 qualified in all three events. However,
upon scrutiny of the documents of 150 candidates, discrepancies were
found in the signatures of 47 candidates between the written
examination and PET attendance sheets, and accordingly, verification
by a forensic expert was recommended.
7. It is also the case of the petitioners that, thereafter, the FCI Regional
Office sought guidance from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
12(CFSL), Bhopal, vide letter dated 17.10.2018, regarding the
verification process. Upon receipt of the requisite instructions, all 47
suspected cases were referred to CFSL, Bhopal, for examination of
signatures vide letter dated 19.12.2018. In response, CFSL, Bhopal,
vide letter dated 21.12.2018, informed that due to heavy pendency of
cases and ongoing shifting of its premises, it was unable to undertake
fresh examinations, and consequently returned the documents
submitted by the FCI Regional Office, Raipur. Thereafter, the FCI
Regional Office, Raipur, approached the Directorate of Forensic
Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, vide letter
dated 02.01.2019 and subsequent reminders, seeking intervention for
expeditious verification of the doubtful cases. In response, permission
was granted on 21.02.2019 to refer the matter to CFSL, Hyderabad,
following which all 47 cases were forwarded to CFSL, Hyderabad, for
examination vide letter dated 06.03.2019.
8. As the result of the recruitment process was not declared, certain
candidates approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 1851/2021
seeking expeditious publication of the result. The said writ petition was
disposed of by order dated 25.03.2021 with observations in
paragraphs 2 and 3 that the recruitment process was stated to be
under investigation on account of alleged irregularities, and in view
thereof, the respondent authorities had not proceeded further. The
Court held that the respondents could not be faulted for such inaction
and expressed an expectation that appropriate steps would be taken
either to drop or to complete the recruitment process upon receipt of
the investigation outcome.
13
9. The order dated 25.03.2021 was subjected to review in Review
Petition No. 104/2021. Vide order dated 09.07.2021, the review
petition was disposed of, noting the submission of the respondent FCI
that there was in fact no CBI investigation, and that the matter
pertained only to an internal enquiry arising out of allegations of
irregularities, with the recruitment process already referred to CFSL,
Hyderabad, for examination of the suspected signatures. It was further
recorded that the Department would take a decision promptly upon
receipt of the forensic report, and accordingly, the earlier reference to
CBI investigation was directed to be treated as an internal
departmental enquiry of the FCI. Thereafter, Writ Appeal No. 220/2021
was preferred against the order passed in the writ proceedings. The
Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 10.08.2021, declined to
interfere in the matter and observed that no case for interference was
made out. However, it was expected that the FCI would proceed
expeditiously with the recruitment process upon receipt of the CFSL
report from Hyderabad, and it was further observed that in the event of
undue delay, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Court
afresh.
10. The petitioners and other candidates, being aggrieved by the
prolonged delay, submitted several RTI applications seeking the status
of the recruitment process. In response dated 20.10.2021 and
01.12.2021, the FCI authorities informed that the recruitment process
was still under consideration and that a final decision would be taken
without delay upon receipt of the forensic/examination report. Further,
replies furnished by the Directorate of Forensic Science Services,
14Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, dated 11.07.2022 and
18.07.2022, disclosed that out of multiple referred cases, examination
of only part of the cases had been completed, while the remaining
cases were either under examination or pending initiation, and that
reports in some cases had been collected by the forwarding authority,
with the remaining yet to be finalized. Further, an RTI application was
submitted before the Directorate of Forensic Science Services seeking
the updated status of the examination of the signatures of the
candidates. In reply dated 06.09.2022, it was informed that out of 86
cases, examination of 73 cases had been completed, while the
remaining cases were under process. It was further stated that 71
cases had already been collected by the concerned authority.
11. It is also pleaded that further RTI applications dated 25.08.2022 and
07.10.2022 were filed before the Directorate of Forensic Science
Services seeking information regarding the completion of examination
of cases relating to CFSL (Bhopal). In response dated 23.09.2022 and
17.10.2022, it was informed that the examination in respect of CFSL
(Bhopal) cases had been completed and that 76 cases had been
collected by the concerned authority on 19.05.2022 and 29.08.2022. It
was further indicated that document examination/signature verification
had been conducted in respect of 96 and 76 candidates, respectively.
Further RTI application dated 17.10.2022 was submitted seeking
clarification regarding the status of examination of CFSL (Bhopal)
cases. In reply dated 25.10.2022, it was informed that examination in
all cases had been completed and that 76 cases had already been
collected by the concerned authority on 19.05.2022 and 29.08.2022,
15
whereas reports in respect of 20 cases were yet to be collected.
Subsequently, another RTI application dated 01.11.2022 was filed
seeking reasons for the non-collection of the remaining 20 cases. In
response dated 29.11.2022, it was informed that letters had already
been issued on 26.09.2022 and 01.11.2022 for the collection of
reports and exhibits about the said pending cases.
12. It is further pleaded that vide communications dated 19.10.2022 and
21.10.2022, the Assistant General Manager (Recruitment) and Chief
General Manager, FCI, informed that the written examination and
Physical Endurance Test had already been conducted on 24.09.2017,
18.08.2018 and 19.08.2018 respectively, and that the process of
identification of candidates was pending before CFSL. It was further
stated that upon receipt of the complete forensic report, a decision
regarding the recruitment of Watchman would be taken. As per
information dated 17.10.2022 and 25.10.2022 issued by the
Directorate of Forensic Science Services, the examination in all cases
was completed. It was further informed that 76 cases had already
been collected by the concerned authority on 19.05.2022 and
29.08.2022, whereas 20 cases remained pending for collection. It was
also indicated that letters for the collection of the remaining reports
and exhibits had already been issued on 26.09.2022 and 01.11.2022;
however, the respondent authorities had not collected the complete
reports from CFSL.
13. It is further submitted that in comparable recruitments conducted by
the Food Corporation of India, Regional Offices at Hyderabad and
16
Ahmedabad, the selection processes were completed within a
reasonable time. In the Hyderabad Region, pursuant to an
advertisement dated 22.07.2017, the written examination was
conducted on 24.09.2017, results were declared on 10.11.2017, and
appointment orders were issued by April 2018, with selected
candidates having joined the organisation. Similarly, in the
Ahmedabad Region, against the advertisement dated 30.12.2017, the
written examination was held on 11.02.2018, and the recruitment
process was duly completed with 93 candidates being appointed
without undue delay.
14. It is also the case of the petitioners that, as per RTI information dated
28.12.2022 issued by CFSL, it was clarified that letters for the
collection of reports were issued on 26.09.2022 and 01.11.2022, and
that all cases had been collected by the concerned authority on
19.05.2022, 29.08.2022 and 06.12.2022, thereby indicating completion
of forensic processing in respect of the referred cases. The FCI
Regional Office, Chhattisgarh, vide reply dated 26.12.2022, informed
that 96 reports had been received from the Directorate of Forensic
Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, and
also referred to certain internal circulars. While similarly situated
recruitment processes undertaken by FCI in other states, such as
Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, were concluded within a reasonable
time, the recruitment process in question has remained pending for
more than five years in the Chhattisgarh Region, despite completion of
forensic examination, as informed by the competent authority despite
repeated representations made by the petitioners, no effective
17
decision was taken by the respondents regarding declaration of
results. Consequently, the petitioners were constrained to file WPS
No. 9296/2022 on 08.12.2022 before this Court. The matter was
initially taken up on 16.01.2023, and time was sought by the
respondents for instructions, and a week’s time was granted.
However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents,
without passing any speaking order or assigning detailed reasons,
issued a public notice dated 12.01.2023 published in Dainik Bhaskar,
whereby the entire recruitment process initiated under Advertisement
dated 19.08.2017 was cancelled on the ground of “unavoidable
circumstances”. The impugned information published in the
newspaper dated 12.01.2023, whereby the entire recruitment process
was cancelled, is cryptic, non-speaking, arbitrary and devoid of any
reasoned justification and amounts to a colourable exercise of power
on the part of the respondents. In these circumstances, the petitioners
have approached this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
W.P.S. 3788/2023
15. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the committee report dated 28.02.2020 as well as the
opinion rendered by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL),
Hyderabad, wherein contradictory and allegedly erroneous
conclusions have been recorded with respect to the petitioner’s
signatures. The facts and events of the recruitment process for the
post of Watchman with the FCI, Chhattisgarh Region, are the same as
the facts and pleadings made by the petitioners in W.P.S. No.
969/2023. The challenge in the present writ petition is the observation
18
of the report dated 28-02-2020 that “the person who wrote the blue
enclosed signatures and writings stamped and marked S1 to S11 did
not write the red enclosed signatures and writings similarly stamped
and marked Q1 and Q2”, while at another place it has been stated that
“the person who wrote the blue enclosed signatures and writings
stamped and marked S1 to S11 also wrote the red enclosed
signatures and writings similarly stamped and marked Q4 and Q5/33”,
thereby giving rise to an apparent inconsistency and arbitrariness in
the forensic opinion forming the basis of the impugned action. The
petitioner has also assailed the subsequent information dated
12.01.2023, published in the newspaper on the same date, whereby
the entire recruitment/selection process for filling up 114 posts of
Watchmen, conducted pursuant to a written examination held more
than five years earlier, has been cancelled in a cryptic and arbitrary
manner, without assigning any cogent, justifiable or legally sustainable
reasons, thereby causing serious prejudice to the
selected/participating candidates, including the petitioner. In the
present writ petition, the petitioner has additionally and specifically
assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the committee report
dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P/1) along with the CFSL opinion forming
its basis, and cannot constitute a valid foundation for the impugned
cancellation decision dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P/2).
W.P.S. 1143/2024 and W.P.S. 1144/2024
16. The respective petitioners, by way of both the present writ petitions,
have assailed the impugned information dated 12.01.2023 published
19
in the newspaper on the same date (Annexure P/1), whereby the
entire selection process for recruitment to 114 posts of Watchman
under the Food Corporation of India, Chhattisgarh Region, has been
cancelled after an inordinate delay of nearly five years from the date of
conduct of the written examination held on 24.09.2017. It is the case of
the respective petitioners that the said cancellation has been effected
in a cryptic, arbitrary, and non-speaking manner, without disclosing
any cogent reasons or legally sustainable grounds, thereby rendering
the action of the respondent authorities illegal, unjustified, and contrary
to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this
Court. The pleadings in both the writ petitions are the same as the
pleadings made in the W.P.S. No. 969/2023, filed by some other
petitioners/candidates. The recruitment process was initiated through
an external agency, namely M/s Attest Testing Services Limited,
Mumbai, pursuant to Advertisement No. Estt.IV/DR-Watchman/
01/2017, and after completion of the written examination and Physical
Efficiency Test (PET), 457 candidates were shortlisted, out of which
160 candidates were declared qualified. However, on suspicion
regarding the mismatch of signatures of 47 candidates, the matter was
referred for forensic examination, which itself suffered procedural
delays and administrative indecision, including return of documents by
CFSL, Bhopal and subsequent forwarding to CFSL, Hyderabad.
Despite continuous correspondence and directions in earlier
proceedings, no final decision was taken for a considerable period,
resulting in prolonged uncertainty in the recruitment process. This
Court had repeatedly observed that the authorities may proceed with
20
the recruitment in accordance with the forensic report and complete
the process expeditiously, thereby negating any legal impediment for
continuation of the selection. It is the grievance of the petitioners that
the respondents, despite assuring expeditious completion before this
Court, have abruptly cancelled the entire process after five years
without any rational basis, which is stated to be mala fide, arbitrary,
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The similarly
situated candidates have already challenged the very same
cancellation order dated 12.01.2023 in W.P.S. No. 969/2023, thereby
giving rise to an identical issue, and in both the present petitions, the
petitioners have assailed the cancellation of entire recruitment process
on the ground of inordinate delay, lack of transparency, and absence
of any reasoned decision-making, which vitiates the impugned action
in its entirety.
17. Ms. Naushina Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners (in W.P.S. No.
969/2023 and W.P.S. No. 3788/2023) would submit that the petitioners
have challenged the impugned order dated 12.01.2023, published in a
daily newspaper, that the same is manifestly arbitrary, cryptic, and
bereft of any discernible reasons, particularly in light of the long and
detailed recruitment process that preceded it. The record reveals that
the recruitment to 114 posts of Watchman was initiated in the year
2017 through a duly notified advertisement, pursuant to which a
written examination was conducted on 24.09.2017, followed by
shortlisting of 457 candidates for the Physical Endurance Test (PET).
The PET was conducted in August 2018, and thereafter, 160
candidates were declared successful. At this advanced stage, where
21
the process had substantially culminated, and only finalization of
results remained, the respondents, after a lapse of more than five
years, chose to cancel the entire selection without assigning any
substantive justification, which renders the decision ex facie arbitrary
and violative of the principles of fairness and transparency in public
employment. Immediately after the PET, the recruitment agency
flagged a limited issue concerning the mismatch of signatures of 47
candidates between the written examination and PET attendance
sheets and suggested forensic verification. Instead of promptly acting
on this recommendation, the respondents allowed the matter to remain
dormant for an extended period. The petitioners have highlighted that
even the initial report of the forensic laboratory was received as early
as February 2020, yet no conclusive decision was taken for several
months thereafter, and additional verifications were initiated only in
October 2020 and subsequently in 2021. The delay is further
compounded by the fact that, despite repeated judicial proceedings,
including earlier writ petitions and directions of this Court to take a final
decision upon receipt of forensic reports, the respondents failed to act
with reasonable expedition. Such inaction, followed by an abrupt
cancellation, is asserted to reflect a casual and negligent
administrative approach.
18. She would further submit that it is also borne out from the pleadings
and documents that the forensic examination did not indicate any
widespread or systemic illegality affecting the entire selection process.
On the contrary, the material demonstrates that out of the 160
candidates who qualified for the PET, 92 candidates were found to
22
have genuine signatures, while only a limited number were found to be
doubtful, including 16 candidates suspected of proxy and certain
others who did not appear for verification. Even as per the
respondents’ own stand, the irregularities were confined to a small
segment of candidates and were identifiable. In such circumstances,
the petitioners contend that the respondents were under an obligation
to segregate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones and
proceed to finalize the selection in respect of those whose candidature
was found to be genuine, rather than annulling the entire process.
19. It is also submitted that the petitioners have further elaborated that the
attempt of the respondents to attribute lapses to the recruitment
agency is misplaced and contrary to the record. The agency, far from
being negligent, had discharged its duties in a bona fide manner by
promptly identifying discrepancies and recommending appropriate
verification. The conduct of the written examination, preparation of the
merit list, and organization of PET were all undertaken under the
supervision and control of the respondents. Moreover, the presence of
respondent officials and videographic recording of the process further
negates any suggestion of large-scale malpractice attributable solely
to the agency. Therefore, the plea now taken by the respondents
appears to be an afterthought aimed at deflecting responsibility for
their own administrative lapses. She would next submit that it is the
grave prejudice caused by the protracted delay and eventual
cancellation of the entire selection process. The candidates, who
participated in the recruitment process in 2017, remained in a state of
uncertainty for over five years, during which many of them crossed the
23
prescribed age limit for similar public employment opportunities. The
petitioners argue that the respondents cannot be permitted to take
advantage of their own delay and inefficiency to the detriment of the
candidates. The contention that the recruitment process has become
stale or infructuous due to the passage of time is specifically
challenged as being self-serving, particularly when such delay is
entirely attributable to the respondents’ inaction.
20. She would lastly submit that the petitioners have anchored their
submissions on settled legal principles governing the cancellation of
recruitment processes. It is argued that wholesale cancellation can be
justified only where the entire process is vitiated by pervasive illegality
or where it is impossible to distinguish between tainted and untainted
candidates. In the present case, the factual record, including forensic
findings, clearly establishes that segregation was not only possible but
had effectively been carried out. Therefore, the decision to cancel the
entire recruitment, instead of adopting a proportionate course of action
by excluding only the tainted candidates, is alleged to be irrational,
disproportionate, and contrary to the doctrine of fairness. The
impugned action, thus, stands vitiated by arbitrariness, non-application
of mind, and colourable exercise of power, warranting judicial
interference.
21. In support of her submission, she relied upon the judgments of “S.
Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab” 1963 SCC OnLine SC 10,
“Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India” 1991 (3) SCC 47, “Mahesh
Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and
24
Others” 1993 (2) SCC 279, “Union of India and Others v. Rajesh
P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and Another” 2003 (7) SCC 285, “Inderpreet
Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others” 2006 (11)
SCC 356, “East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao
and Others” 2010 (7) SCC 678, “High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh v. State of Punjab and Others” 2010 (11) SCC 684,
“Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and Others v. Ajit Singh Patel and
Others” 2019 (12) SCC 285, “Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi
Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others” 2021
(4) SCC 631, “Sivanandan C.T. and Others v. High Court of Kerala
and Others” 2024 (3) SCC 799, “Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India
and Others” 2024 (9) SCC 743, “State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi
Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others” order dated 03-04-2025 by
Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024, “Tej Prakash Pathak v.
Rajasthan High Court and Others” 2025 (2) SCC 1, “Amit Kumar
Bhardwaj v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others” order dated 29-07-
2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.S. No.
2311/2024.
22. Mr. Bharat Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
W.P.S. No. 1143/2024 and 1144/2024, while adopting the submissions
made by Ms. Naushina Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.S. No. 969/2023, would make an additional submission that the
impugned communication dated 12.01.2023 is ex facie arbitrary and
illegal, inasmuch as the respondents have cancelled the entire
recruitment process after an inordinate delay of nearly six years
without assigning any reasons whatsoever. It is submitted that the
25
recruitment process, initiated in 2017, had substantially progressed
through all stages, including the written examination and PET, in which
the petitioners were declared successful and thus formed part of the
zone of consideration for appointment. Despite judicial orders requiring
the respondents to take a final decision upon receipt of forensic
reports, the respondents failed to act diligently and, instead, chose to
abruptly cancel the process in a cryptic manner. The petitioners further
submit that such an order, which neither discloses reasons nor reflects
any objective satisfaction based on material on record, is per se
arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of administrative law.
Reliance is placed on the judgment in “East Coast Railway v.
Mahadev Appa Rao” 2010 (7) SCC 678, wherein it has been held that
even though a candidate does not possess an indefeasible right to
appointment, the State cannot exercise its power to cancel a selection
process arbitrarily, and the absence of reasons is itself indicative of
non-application of mind, rendering the decision legally unsustainable
and amenable to judicial review under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
23. He would also submit that the action of the respondents in cancelling
the entire selection process on account of alleged irregularities
pertaining to a limited number of candidates is wholly contrary to the
settled doctrine of segregation of tainted and untainted candidates. It
is submitted that the material on record, including the forensic
verification reports, clearly demonstrates that a substantial number of
candidates, including the petitioners, were found to be genuine, with
their signatures duly verified by the competent forensic authority. Even
26
as per the respondents’ own stand, the alleged discrepancies were
confined to a small group of candidates, while the majority remained
untainted. In such circumstances, the respondents were duty-bound to
segregate the tainted candidates and proceed with the recruitment
process in respect of the eligible and meritorious candidates, instead
of resorting to wholesale cancellation. He would also submit that the
petitioners cannot be made to suffer for the alleged misconduct of
others, particularly when they have successfully cleared all stages of
the selection process and have been waiting for years for its
culmination. Placing reliance on “Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U.
Puthuvalnikathu” 2003 (7) SCC 285 and “Sachin Kumar vs.
DSSSB” 2021 (4) SCC 631, it is submitted that where irregularities are
not systemic and it is possible to identify and exclude the wrongdoers,
cancellation of the entire process is an extreme and unwarranted
measure. The impugned action, therefore, is not only arbitrary and
excessive but also violative of the constitutional mandate of fairness,
reasonableness, and equality in public employment, resulting in grave
prejudice to the petitioners who have now also suffered loss of
opportunity due to the passage of time and crossing of the age limit.
Therefore, the impugned action of the respondent authorities in
cancelling the entire selection process is liable to be quashed.
24. Per contra, Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
R.S. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent Food Corporation of
India, in all these petitions, would oppose the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the recruitment
process initiated under Advertisement No. Estt. IV/DR-Watchman/
27
01/2017, and was governed strictly by the terms and conditions
stipulated therein, which were binding on all candidates. The
advertisement clearly provided that mere participation in the written
test or Physical Endurance Test (PET) would not confer any vested
right to appointment, and that eligibility conditions would be verified
subsequently. It was further stipulated that the decision of the
Corporation in all matters relating to examination, evaluation, and
preparation of the merit list would be final and not open to challenge.
Thus, the petitioners cannot claim any enforceable right merely on the
basis of having participated in any stage of the selection process. The
recruitment process was entrusted to an independent agency, initially
Attest Testing Services Limited (later MEL Training and Assessment
Limited), through a transparent tender process. However, during the
course of the selection process, serious irregularities surfaced,
particularly concerning the authenticity of candidates’ identities. The
agency itself raised concerns regarding mismatch of signatures
between written examination records and PET attendance sheets,
prompting a detailed forensic examination. These developments
clearly indicate that the process was vitiated by factors beyond the
respondent’s control and required thorough scrutiny to uphold fairness.
The forensic examination conducted by the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad and subsequently by CFSL, Bhopal,
revealed alarming discrepancies. A significant number of candidates
were found to have mismatched signatures, indicating impersonation
and participation of proxy candidates. Additionally, several candidates
failed to appear for specimen signature verification despite being given
28
opportunities. The reports collectively establish that a substantial
portion of the candidates in the selection process were either bogus or
their identity could not be conclusively verified, thereby striking at the
root of the recruitment’s integrity. In light of these findings, the entire
selection process stood irreparably tainted. The presence of large-
scale impersonation and the inability to conclusively verify candidate
identities rendered it impossible to segregate genuine candidates from
fraudulent ones with certainty. In such circumstances, continuing with
the selection process or declaring results would have resulted in grave
injustice and compromised the principles of fairness, transparency,
and equality in public employment.
25. He would further submit that the selection list had neither been
finalized nor published at any stage. It remained under departmental
consideration, and therefore, no candidate acquired any indefeasible
right to appointment. It is a settled principle of law that an unfinalized
or unpublished selection list does not create any cause of action.
Consequently, the decision to cancel the recruitment process cannot
be said to have infringed any legal right of the petitioners. Considering
the magnitude of irregularities, the findings of expert forensic bodies,
and the necessity to preserve the sanctity of the recruitment process,
the respondent took a conscious and reasoned decision to cancel the
entire selection process. This decision was neither arbitrary nor
unreasonable but was taken in the larger public interest to ensure
purity in public recruitment.
29
26. It is next submitted that while the principle of segregation between
tainted and untainted candidates has been recognized in service
jurisprudence, its applicability is contingent upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Segregation is permissible only when the
irregularities are limited in scope, clearly identifiable, and the integrity
of the remaining selection process is demonstrably intact. In the
present case, however, the material on record, particularly the forensic
reports, reveals that the irregularities are not confined to a few isolated
instances but are widespread and systemic, thereby vitiating the entire
process at its core.
27. He would rely upon the judgments of “Rai Shivendra Bahadur v.
Governing Body of Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif” AIR 1962 SC
1210, “Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of Gujrat and
Others” 2017 (13) SCC 621, “Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v.
Rajasthan High Court and Others” 2025 (2) SCC 1, “State of
Assam and Others v. Arbinda Rabha and Others” 2025 (7) SCC
705, “State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya
(Chatterjee) and Others” 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719.
28. Mr. Tanmay Thomas, learned counsel for the Respondent M/s MEL
Training and Assessment Ltd. (Respondent No. 4 in W.P.S. No.
969/2023, Respondent No. 5 in W.P.S. No. 1143/2024, and W.P.S. No.
1144/2024), would submit that the respondent No. 4/agency is the
examination conducting agency, and its role in the recruitment process
was strictly limited to conducting the examination and related logistical
functions in terms of the Letter of Acceptance dated 28.01.2017
30
executed with the FCI. The Agency had no authority in matters
concerning final selection, appointment, or issuance of the select list,
which squarely fell within the domain of FCI. Therefore, no enforceable
right or obligation arises against the agency vis-à-vis the claims made
by the petitioners, and its present submissions are confined solely to
assisting this Court in compliance with the directions issued. It is
further submitted that the entire recruitment process, including the
written examination conducted on 24.09.2017 and the subsequent
Physical Endurance Test (PET), was carried out by the Agency strictly
in accordance with the instructions, supervision, and presence of
officials of FCI. Upon completion of the written examination, results
were duly processed and published on the designated recruitment
portal, and candidates were shortlisted transparently on the basis of
merit. Thereafter, PET was conducted for the shortlisted candidates,
resulting in 160 candidates qualifying. The Agency had also prepared
a merit list based on written examination marks of PET-qualified
candidates; however, the same was not declared solely due to
express instructions from FCI pending forensic verification. He would
further submit that upon noticing certain prima facie discrepancies in
signatures, he proactively informed FCI and recommended forensic
verification to ensure the integrity of the process. Thereafter, all
actions relating to forensic examination, including the collection of
specimen signatures and referral to CFSL, were undertaken by FCI,
with the Agency extending full cooperation. The Agency has, from time
to time, handed over all original records, including OMR sheets,
attendance sheets, and other relevant documents, as and when
31
requisitioned by FCI. At no stage has the Agency withheld any
material or impeded the process; rather, it has acted diligently and
transparently in aid of the recruitment authority. It is next submitted
that the identification of “disputed” and “undisputed” candidates is
within the exclusive purview of FCI, and no such classification has
been communicated to the Agency thus far. The Agency is bound by
any further directions of this court, if made, in accordance with law.
29. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the documents annexed with the
petition by the respective parties, and gone through their respective
pleadings.
30. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on
record, this Court finds that the recruitment process in question was
initiated in the year 2017 and had substantially progressed through all
its essential stages, including written examination and Physical
Endurance Test (PET), culminating in the shortlisting of candidates. It
is not in dispute that 457 candidates were shortlisted and 160
candidates were declared successful in PET, and thereafter the
process was stalled primarily on account of alleged signature
discrepancies in respect of a limited number of candidates. The
agency informed about the discrepancies in the signatures of the 47
candidates from their written examination answer sheets. The overall
sequence of events demonstrates that the recruitment had reached an
advanced stage and only the final declaration of the result remained
pending. In such circumstances, the respondents were required to act
32
with promptitude and conclude the process within a reasonable
timeframe, particularly when no statutory embargo or legal prohibition
existed to indefinitely withhold the result.
31. It is further relevant to note that even as per the forensic material now
sought to be relied upon by the respondents, the alleged irregularities
are not unidentifiable to justify wholesale cancellation of the
recruitment process, but are, on the contrary, clearly demarcated and
confined to specific categories of candidates whose cases have been
individually examined by the CFSL, Hyderabad and CFSL, Bhopal.
The reports indicate that out of the candidates subjected to forensic
scrutiny, a distinct classification has emerged between those whose
specimen signatures matched the record (untainted candidates), those
whose signatures were found to be forged or mismatched (tainted
candidates), and those who either failed to appear for verification or
whose opinion could not be conclusively determined despite multiple
attempts. The respondents’ own stand discloses that approximately 16
candidates were found to be proxy candidates, 28 candidates failed to
appear for specimen signature verification, and a further set of cases
were either conclusively opined as genuine or doubtful based on
repeated forensic attempts, thereby demonstrating that the exercise
undertaken was not inconclusive in toto but yielded identifiable results
capable of classification. From the record, it also revealed that
segregation about the mismatch of the signatures of the candidates.
The data given in the committee report dated 11-01-2023 is as below:-
1. Agency failed to submit questioned document 1
(Jeetesh Kumar Meena)
33
2. Not definite case (Required more specimen) 21
3. Yet to receive (Kamal Kishor Sahu) 1
4. Genuine 92
5. Genuine ** (signature not matched) 2
6. Proxy 16
7. Not turned up for signature specimen 27
32. The fact that out of the candidates referred for verification, a
substantial number were already found either genuine or tainted, and
only a limited subset remained inconclusive or absent, clearly
establishes that the process of segregation was not only feasible but
had in fact already been substantially undertaken by the expert
agencies themselves. In such circumstances, the contention of the
respondents that the entire selection process stood vitiated in a
manner rendering segregation impossible is not borne out from the
record. On the contrary, the forensic findings themselves provide a
rational and objective basis to separate tainted candidates from
untainted ones, and to preserve the result of those candidates whose
credentials have been found to be genuine. Therefore, the material on
record does not justify the extreme step of cancelling the entire
recruitment process, particularly when the doctrine of severability and
segregation is clearly attracted, and when identifiable tainted
candidates can be excluded without affecting the integrity of the
selection of untainted candidates who have already been verified
through independent scientific examination.
33. It is apposite here to note the earlier orders passed in writ petitions
filed by the petitioners. In W.P.S. No. 1851/2021, the following order
was passed by the coordinate bench of this Court on 25-03-2021:-
34
“2. However, perusal of the pleadings of the writ
petition itself would show that the matter of
recruitment of Watchman by the respondents in
Chhattisgarh region was subjected to a CBI
investigation on account of certain complaints of
illegalities and corruption leveled in the course of
recruitment. That since the matter is under CBI
investigation, the authorities of the respondents
have laid their hands off. Even otherwise since
the matter is under CBI investigation further
order is also not communicated to the
respondents from the CBI to proceed further with
the recruitment process. The respondent-
authorities therefore cannot be blamed for not
further proceedings with the recruitment process.
3. It is expected that the respondent-authorities
shall take appropriate steps either dropping the
entire alleged tainted recruitment process or
continue with the recruitment process and by
completing the recruitment process immediately
after the CBI communicates to the respondents.”
34. Thereafter, a Review Petition no. 104/2021 was filed by the petitioners
in which the following order was passed on 09-07-2021:-
“5. Mr. R.S. Patel, learned Counsel for
Respondent – Food Corporation of India, has filed
35their reply to the present Review Petition
categorically stating that though there is no CBI
investigation and the said observation in the order
has been crept in on account of certain incorrect
statement made by Petitioners, however, there is
no such enquiry/investigation in respect of alleged
complaint received from the Chhattisgarh region
of mass copying/other malpractices detected in
the recruitment process and the matter has
already been sent for expert report to the Central
Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and the
Department would be taking a decision
immediately on receipt of the report from the said
Laboratory. He further submits that they have also
sent a reminder to the Laboratory for an
expeditious submission of report.
6. In view of the said submission by learned
Counsel for Respondents, this Court is of the
opinion that no strong case has been made out for
review of the order dated 25.3.2021. However, the
observation made in the order so far as the CBI
investigation is concerned, the same may be
treated as deleted and instead of it should be
treated as investigation/enquiry at the level of the
Food Corporation of India.”
36
35. The petitioners thereafter filed the Writ Appeal No. 220/2021 before
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed on 10-08-
2021 with certain observations that:-
“4. In the review petition filed by the petitioners,
the learned Single Judge has deleted the said
part of the order, wherein there was reference of
C.B.I. investigation. However, as informed by
learned Standing counsel for the F.C.I., the
matter has already been sent for expert report to
the Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
Hyderabad and the department would be taking a
decision immediately on receipt of the report from
the said laboratory. Learned Standing counsel
also submitted before the Court that they have
also sent a reminder to the laboratory for an
expeditious submission of report.
5. Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate appearing with
Shri Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the
appellants submits that in other region,
appointments have already been made.
Therefore, there is no impediment for the F.C.I. to
proceed further in the matter but yet the
recruitment process is not finalized.
6. Having heard Shri Parag Kotecha, learned
counsel for the appellants and learned Standing
37counsel for the F.C.I., we are of the view that no
interference in this intra Court appeal is called for.
Once statement has been made by learned
Standing counsel for the F.C.I., we hope that the
F.C.I. shall proceed further in the matter
immediately on receipt of report from Central
Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. If the
recruitment process remains pending for
unreasonably long period, the petitioner would be
at liberty to move afresh before this Court.”
36. In the order passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.
No. 220/2021, the statement made in the earlier writ petition by the
FCI was considered and observed that the FCI shall proceed further in
the matter immediately on receipt of report from CFSL, Hyderabad.
Therefore, the authorities concerned were required to complete the
recruitment process. These efforts reflect an intent to participate
transparently in a competitive examination on the strength of merit and
a fair selection process with legitimate expectations.
37. In the case of “High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. State of
Punjab” (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“7. The relevant paras of the judgment of
Inderpreet Singh Kahlon1 are reproduced
hereinbelow: (SCC pp. 400-01, paras 93-95)
38“93. We must, however, express our
satisfaction that no candidate for the year
2001 has been appointed. It is one thing to
say that having regard to the nature of
selection process, no person is appointed
from the select list as no person has a right
to be appointed only because his name
appears in the select list, but, in our
opinion, a different standard must be
adopted for terminating the services of the
officers who had completed about three
years of service. Some of them, as noticed
hereinbefore, passed departmental tests.
Some have been given higher
responsibilities. They had completed the
period of probation and some were nearing
the completion thereof. They presumably
had been working to the satisfaction of the
authorities concerned.
94. The impugned judgment as also the
orders of the State Government and the
High Court are, thus, liable to be set aside
and directions are issued. Although the
impugned judgments cannot be sustained,
we are of the opinion that the interest of
justice would be subserved if the matters
39are remitted to the High Court for
consideration of the matters afresh.
However, with a view to segregate the
tainted from the non-tainted, and that in the
interest of justice the High Court should be
requested to constitute two independent
Scrutiny Committees–one relating to the
executive officers and the other relating to
the judicial officers. (emphasis supplied by
us)
95. We would, furthermore, request the
High Court to consider the desirability of
delineating the area which would fall for
consideration by such Committees within a
time-frame. Copies of such reports of the
Committees shall be supplied to the
learned counsel for the petitioners and/or
at least they should be given inspection
thereof. The parties shall be given
opportunity to inspect any document
including the answer sheets, etc. if an
application, in that behalf is filed. Such
inspection shall, however, be permitted to
be made only in the presence of an officer
of the court. The appellants shall be given
two weeks’ time only for submitting their
40objections to such reports and their
comments, if any, on any material
whereupon the High Court places reliance
from the date of supply of copies or
inspection is given. Having regard to the
fact that the appellants are out of job for a
long time, we would request the High Court
to consider the desirability disposing of the
matter as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within the period of three months
from the date of receipt of the copy of this
order. Before parting with the case,
however, we may observe that it is
expected that the State having regard to
the magnitude of the matter shall leave no
stone unturned to bring the guilty to book. It
is the duty of the State to unearth the scam
and spare no officer howsoever high he
may be. We expect the State to make a
thorough investigation into the matter.
These appeals are allowed to the
aforementioned extent and with the
directions and observations made
hereinbefore."
38. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held in the
case of “Vanshika Yadav” (supra) that:-
41
“62. The facts of this case and the resultant issue
before this Court do not call for the development
of new legal principles. It is settled law that the
cancellation of an examination, either for the
purposes of gaining admission into professional
and other courses or for the purpose of
recruitment to a government post, is justified only
in cases where the sanctity of the exam is found
to be compromised at a systemic level. Courts
may direct the cancellation of an examination or
approve such cancellation by the competent
authority only if it is not possible to separate the
tainted candidates from the untainted ones.
68. In arriving at a conclusion as to whether an
examination suffers from widespread issues,
courts must ensure that allegations of malpractice
are substantiated and that the material on record,
including investigative reports, point to that
conclusion. There must be at least some
evidence to allow the Court d to reach that
conclusion. This standard need not be unduly
strict. To elaborate, it is not necessary for the
material on record to point to one and only
conclusion which is that malpractice has taken
place at a systemic level. However, there must be
42a real possibility of systemic malaise as borne out
by the material before the Court.
87. In the previous section which sets out the
position of law on this issue, this Court noticed
that the purpose of assessing whether the
sanctity of the exam has been vitiated at a
systemic level was to facilitate and encourage a f
proportional response. If it is possible to separate
the tainted candidates from the untainted ones,
there would be no justification to cancel the
exam. This is because honest candidates would
be made to suffer without reason due to the
actions of some unscrupulous candidates. It is
also important for the response to malpractice to
be proportionate. Ordering a re-test would disrupt
the academic schedule for the year. The delay in
completing admission will impact 9 the availability
of resident doctors to attend to patient care in the
future. Any such direction will have
disproportionate consequences for candidates
from marginalised backgrounds. They would be
disadvantaged, in the event of a re-exam- neither
are desirable outcomes.”
43
39. The issue is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
“Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and Others” (supra) in which it has been
held that:-
“14. Suffice it to observe that while disposing of
the special leave petition filed by the appellants
on the earlier occasion vide order dated 16-3-
20183, this Court has neither disturbed the
conclusion reached by the High Court in its order
dated 28-11-2017¹ nor granted liberty to the
appellants to challenge the said conclusion in
the review application or for that matter, by way
of a fresh special leave petition. The relevant
conclusion of the High Court in its order dated
28-11-2017¹, reads thus: (Ajit Singh Patel case,
SCC OnLine All para 37)
“37. In view of the above, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned
order dated 11-8-2017 has been passed in
violation of principles of natural justice
without issuing notice and without
affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners, no exercise was undertaken to
distinguish the case of tainted and non-
tainted candidates to arrive at the
conclusion while c passing the impugned
order as such the impugned order dated
4411-8-2017 is not sustainable and is liable
to be set aside.”
40. In the case of “Baishakhi Bhattacharyya” (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court further held that:-
“18. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, this
Court observed that a holistic view must be
adopted by assessing the extent of unfair means
used and whether it is possible to separate the
tainted 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.
19. The following principles emerge from the
aforesaid discussion:
*When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals
systemic irregularities, such as malaise or
45fraud, 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.
*Individual notice and hearing may not be
necessary in all cases for practical reasons
when the facts establish that the entire
46selection process is vitiated with illegalities
at a large scale.”
41. In the case of “Mahadev Appa Rao” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has considered that:-
“14. It is evident from the above that while no
candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a
post merely because he has appeared in the
examination or even found a place in the select
list, yet the State does not d enjoy an unqualified
prerogative to refuse an appointment in an
arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the
candidates as reflected by the merit list prepared
at the end of the selection process. The validity
of the State’s decision not to make an
appointment is thus a matter which is not beyond
judicial review before a competent writ court. If
any such decision is indeed found to be
arbitrary, appropriate directions can be issued in
the matter.
17. It is trite that Article 14 of the Constitution
strikes at arbitrariness which is an antithesis of
the guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. Whether or not the cancellation
of the typing test was arbitrary is a question
which the Court shall have to examine once a
47challenge is mounted to any such action, no
matter the candidates do not have an
indefeasible right to claim an appointment
against the advertised posts.
18. What then is meant by arbitrary/arbitrariness
and how far can the decision of the competent
authority in the present case be described as
arbitrary?
19. Black’s Law Dictionary describes the term
“arbitrary” in the following words:
“Arbitrary. 1. Depending on individual
discretion; specif.. determined by a judge
rather than by fixed rules, procedures, or
law. 2. (Of a judicial decision) founded on
prejudice or preference rather than on
reason or fact. This type of decision is
often termed arbitrary and capricious.”
20. To the same effect is the meaning given to
the expression “arbitrary” by Corpus Juris
Secundum which explains the term in the
following words:
“Arbitrary. Based alone upon one’s will,
and not upon any course of reasoning and
exercise of judgment; bound by no law;
48capricious; exercised according to one’s
own will or caprice and therefore conveying
a notion of a tendency to abuse possession
of power; fixed or done capriciously or at
pleasure, without adequate determining
principle, non-rational, or not done or
acting according to reason or judgment; not
based upon actuality but beyond a
reasonable extent; not founded in the
nature of things; not governed by any fixed
rules or standard; also, in a somewhat
different sense, absolute in power,
despotic, or tyrannical; harsh and
unforbearing. When applied to acts,
‘arbitrary’ has been held to connote a
disregard of evidence or of the proper
weight thereof; to express an idea opposed
to administrative, executive, judicial, or
legislative discretion; and to imply at least
an element of bad faith, and has been
compared with ‘willful’.”
21. There is no precise statutory or other
definition of the term “arbitrary”. In Shrilekha
Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.11 this Court explained
that the true import of the expression
“arbitrariness” is more easily visualised than
49
precisely stated or defined and that whether or
not an act is arbitrary would be determined on
the facts and circumstances of a given case.
This Court observed: (SCC p. 243, para 36)
“36. The meaning and true import of
arbitrariness is more easily visualised than
precisely stated or defined. The question,
whether an impugned act is arbitrary or
not, is ultimately to be answered on the
facts and in the circumstances of a given
case. An obvious test to apply is to see
whether there is any discernible principle
emerging from the impugned act and if so,
does it satisfy the test of reasonableness,
Where a b mode is prescribed for doing an
act and there is no impediment in following
that procedure, performance of the act
otherwise and in a manner which does not
disclose any discernible principle which is
reasonable, may itself attract the vice of
arbitrariness. Every State action must be
informed by reason and it follows that an
act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. The
rule of law contemplates governance by
laws and c not by humour, whims or
caprices of the men to whom the
50
governance is entrusted for the time
being. It is trite that ‘be you ever so high,
the laws are above you’. This is what men
in power must remember, always.”
22. Dealing with the principle governing exercise
of official power Prof. De Smith, Woolf and
Jowell in their celebrated book on Judicial
Review of Administrative Action emphasised
how the decision-maker invested with the d wide
discretion is expected to exercise that discretion
in accordance with the general principles
governing exercise of power in a constitutional
democracy unless of course the statute under
which such power is exercisable indicates
otherwise. One of the most fundamental
principles of the rule of law recognised in all
democratic systems is that the power vested in
any competent authority shall not be exercised
arbitrarily and that the power is exercised that it
does not lead to any unfair discrimination. The
following passage from the above is in this
regard apposite:
“We have seen in a number of situations
how the scope of an official power cannot
be interpreted in isolation from general
51principles governing the exercise of power
in a constitutional democracy. The courts
presume that these principles apply to the
exercise of all powers and that even
where the decision-maker is invested with
wide discretion, that discretion is to be
exercised in accordance with those
principles unless Parliament clearly
indicates otherwise. One such principle,
the rule of law, contains within it a number
of requirements such as the right of the
individual to access to the law and that
power should not be arbitrarily exercised.
The rule of law above all rests upon the
principle of legal certainty, which will be
considered here, along with a principle
which is partly but not wholly contained
within the rule of law, namely, the principle
of equality, or equal treatment without
unfair discrimination.”
23. Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an
authority can manifest itself in different forms.
Non-application of mind by the authority making
the order is only one of them. Every order
passed by a public authority must disclose due
and proper application of mind by the person
52
making the order. This may be evident from the
order itself or the record contemporaneously
maintained. Application of mind is best
demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the
authority making the order. And disclosure is
best done by recording the reasons that led the
authority to pass the order in question. Absence
of reasons either in the order passed by the
authority or in the record contemporaneously
maintained is clearly suggestive of the order
being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable.”
42. This Court further finds that the delay of nearly five to six years in
finalizing the recruitment process is wholly unexplained and
unjustified. The record reveals repeated administrative indecision,
shifting of forensic examination between different laboratories, and
prolonged pendency at the level of CFSL. Despite forensic reports
having been substantially received and RTI replies indicating
completion of examination in most cases, the respondents failed to
take a final decision. Such inordinate delay, attributable solely to the
respondent authorities, has rendered the recruitment process arbitrary
in its operation. It is well settled that public employment processes
must be concluded within a reasonable time, and unexplained delay
itself becomes a ground of judicial scrutiny under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
53
43. The impugned cancellation of the entire selection process vide
communication dated 12.01.2023 is found to be cryptic, non-speaking
and devoid of any material reasoning. The expression “unavoidable
circumstances” employed in the impugned decision does not disclose
any rational basis or objective satisfaction for scrapping the entire
recruitment. The law is well settled that even where a decision is within
the executive domain, it must be supported by reasons, especially
when it adversely affects the rights and legitimate expectations of a
large number of candidates. The absence of reasons, particularly in a
case where the recruitment had almost reached culmination, vitiates
the decision-making process and renders the impugned action
arbitrary.
44. This Court also finds substance in the submission of the petitioners
that the respondents failed to adopt a proportionate and legally
sustainable course of action by not segregating tainted candidates
from untainted candidates. The material on record, including forensic
reports referred to by both parties, indicates that alleged irregularities
were confined to a limited number of candidates. There is nothing to
establish that the entire selection process was vitiated or irretrievably
compromised. The law consistently recognizes that where segregation
is possible, cancellation of the entire selection is impermissible. In the
present case, the respondents have neither demonstrated the
impossibility of segregation nor undertaken any exercise to distinguish
genuine candidates from suspected ones. The doctrine of legitimate
expectation squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The
petitioners, having successfully cleared the written examination and
54
PET and having remained in the select zone for several years, were
legitimately expecting finalization of results. This expectation was
further reinforced by repeated assurances and representations made
by the respondents before this Court and in RTI responses, indicating
that the process would be concluded upon receipt of forensic reports.
The abrupt cancellation after such prolonged delay has defeated this
legitimate expectation without any justified cause, thereby rendering
the action arbitrary and unfair.
45. It is also evident that the respondents have attempted to justify the
cancellation on the grounds of alleged large-scale irregularities;
however, the material placed on record does not support such a
sweeping conclusion. The forensic findings, even as projected by the
respondents, do not establish systemic or pervasive fraud affecting the
entire selection. At best, they point to isolated discrepancies, which
could have been addressed by excluding doubtful candidates. In the
absence of cogent material demonstrating that the entire process was
irreparably vitiated, the extreme step of wholesale cancellation cannot
be sustained in law. To segregate tainted and untainted candidates
respects the constitutional mandate of equality, fairness and justice. It
ensures that the innocent candidates are not deprived of their rights
due to allegations against others and that the ongoing investigation by
the competent authority is not hampered or prejudiced.
46. The petitioners, having participated in the recruitment process with
due preparation and having successfully qualified in the written
examination as well as the Physical Endurance Test, were legitimately
55
entitled to fair consideration for appointment; however, on account of
alleged irregularities attributable only to a limited number of
candidates, the entire process was abruptly cancelled, thereby
depriving the petitioners of their rightful opportunity. Such action has
caused not only grave prejudice but also significant mental agony and
uncertainty, as the petitioners remained in prolonged anticipation of
the outcome for several years. During this extended period of inaction,
many of the petitioners have either crossed or are on the verge of
crossing the prescribed age limit for similar public employment,
effectively foreclosing their future prospects. The petitioners, who are
otherwise untainted and have fulfilled all requirements of the selection
process, cannot be made to suffer for the alleged misconduct of
others, and any such deprivation would be wholly unjust, arbitrary, and
contrary to the principles of fairness governing public employment.
47. At no point during the written examination or PET were the petitioners
found ineligible or unfit. The examination conducting agency or the FCI
did not raise any concern regarding the eligibility, character or conduct
of the petitioners. This sequence of events clearly establishes that the
petitioners had every legitimate expectation of receiving their
appointment orders in due course, and such expectations cannot be
dismissed as unfounded. The abrupt deviation from this process
occurred only after about five to six years, when the order was passed
on 10-08-2021 in W.A. No. 220/2021. In the present case, though it is
submitted that the matter is handed over to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) for further inquiry, but, to date, there is no material
on record to substantiate any outcome of the said inquiry. The future
56
prospects of the aspirants who have secured their positions through a
rigorous and competitive process cannot be stalled merely on the
basis of complaints against some of the candidates. Many candidates
have been selected and are waiting for their appointment orders.
Under such circumstances, it would be unjust to categorise them as
the “tainted candidates”. The CBI is already conducting a thorough
investigation/inquiry. If any petitioners are found to be involved in any
wrongdoing, appropriate consequences will undoubtedly follow. In the
case of “Shankarshan Dash” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that the state or its instrumentalities cannot arbitrarily deny
appointment to a selected candidate. When the action of the
authorities concerned in denying an appointment to a selected
candidate is challenged, the burden lies on the respondent to justify its
decision not to appoint the candidate from the select list.
48. In the case of “Sachin Kumar and Others” (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles that even in cases involving
large-scale irregularities, the right of bona fide candidates must be
protected. It has been categorically held that malfeasance on the part
of a few individuals should not result in penalizing those who were not
involved in any wrongdoing. The state authorities are obligated to
distinguish between culpable and innocent candidates, and ensure
that those found to be uninvolved in any malpractice are not unjustly
denied their appointments. In para 35, 41 and 42, it has been held
that:-
57
“35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not
reinvent 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 malpractices 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
58similarly 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
wrongdoing 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
wrongdoing should not pay a price for those who
are actually found to be involved in irregularities.
By segregating the wrongdoers, 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
59employment 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 malpractices and to penalise them for
their wrongdoing, it would be unfair to impose the
burden of their wrongdoing on those who are free
from taint. To treat the innocent and the
wrongdoers 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.
41. On the other hand, the judgment of a two-
Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v.
60Rajesh P.U.11 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 falled 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 12 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.
42. Upholding the view of the High Court, a two-
Judge Bench of this Court held: (Rajesh P.U.
case, SCC p. 290, para 6)
61“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
62reasonably 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.”
49. In further support of this principle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Union of India & Others vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu &
Another, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285, held that the adoption of a
rigid and arbitrary standard to annul the entire selection process,
despite concrete and positive information suggesting that irregularities
pertained only to a few candidates, is legally untenable. The Court
observed that such a decision displays a blatant disregard for relevant
considerations and reflects a complete misdirection of the exercise of
discretion by the competent authority. The cancellation of the entire
selection, in such circumstances, was held to be excessive, irrational,
and grossly disproportionate to the actual irregularities detected.
Relevant paragraph is quoted below for ready reference:
“6. ………Applying a unilaterally rigid and
arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the
selections despite the firm and positive
63information 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.
7. For all the reasons stated above, we could not
find any infirmity whatsoever in the judgment of
the High Court which adopted a practical,
pragmatic, rational and realistic solution to the
problem. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall
stand dismissed. The interim order earlier
granted thus automatically stands revoked. The
appointments shall be made within 60 days from
this day, without any further delay. No costs.”
64
50. This Court is also of the considered view that the respondents cannot
be permitted to take advantage of their own administrative lapses and
prolonged inaction. The delay in finalization of the recruitment process,
coupled with failure to promptly act on forensic reports, lies squarely at
the doorstep of the respondents. The candidates, including the
petitioners, cannot be made to suffer for inefficiency or indecision of
the recruiting authority. Such conduct offends the constitutional
mandate of fairness and equality in public employment under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
51. In the case of “Shivnandan C.T.” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held that:-
“18. The basis of the doctrine of legitimate
expectation in public law is founded on the
principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in
Government dealings with individuals. It
recognises that a public authority’s promise or
past conduct will give rise to a legitimate
expectation. The doctrine is premised on the
notion that public authorities, while performing
their public duties, ought to honour their promises
or past practices. The legitimacy of an
expectation can be inferred if it is rooted in law,
custom, or established procedure.”
52. In the case of “Shankarshan Dash” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that:-
65
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of
vacancies are notified for appointment and
adequate number of candidates are found fit, the
successful candidates acquire an indefeasible
right to be appointed which be legitimately
denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts
to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitmentand on their selection they do not
acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant
recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under
no legal a duty to fill up all or any of the
vacancies. However, it does not mean that the
State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies
has to be taken bona fide for appropriate
reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are
filled up, the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected
at b the recruitment test, and no discrimination
can be permitted. This cor-rect position has been
consistently followed by this Court, and we do not
find any discordant note in the decisions in State
of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha,
Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana², or
Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.”
66
53. In the case of “Tej Prakash Pathak” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that:-
“63. In Section (C) above, we have already
noticed the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in Shankarsan Dash⁴⁵ where it was held:
(SCC p. 51, para 7)
“7. … Unless the relevant recruitment rules
so indicate, the State is under no legal duty
to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
However, it does not mean that the State
has the licence of acting in an arbitrary
manner. The decision not to fill up the
vacancies has to be taken bona fide for
appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies
or any of them are filled up, the State is
bound to respect the comparative merit of
the candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test, and no discrimination can
be permitted.”
64. Thus, in light of the decision in Shankarsan
Dash⁴⁵, a candidate placed in the select list gets
no indefeasible right to be appointed even if
vacancies are available. Similar was the view
taken by this Court in Subash Chander Marwaha³
where against 15 vacancies only top 7 from the
67
select list were appointed. But there is a caveat.
The State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily
deny appointment to a selected candidate.
Therefore, when a challenge is laid to State’s
action in respect of denying appointment to a
selected candidate, the burden is on the State to
justify its decision for not making appointment
from the select list.
65.6. Placement in the select list gives no
indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its
instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose
not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies
exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot
arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within
the zone of consideration in the select list.”
54. The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgments cited by
them does not advance their case in the facts of the present matter. It
is no doubt well settled, as held in Shankarsan Dash (supra) and
reiterated in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), that a candidate does not
acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by participating in
or even qualifying a selection process. However, these very authorities
equally emphasize that the State cannot act arbitrarily or deny
appointment without bona fide and justifiable reasons. Similarly, while
the respondents have sought to rely on decisions such as Baishakhi
Bhattacharyya (supra) and Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai (supra) to
68
contend that large-scale irregularities justify cancellation, those
judgments are clearly distinguishable, as they apply only in cases
where the entire selection process is vitiated by systemic fraud or
where segregation between tainted and untainted candidates is
impossible.
55. In the present case, the material on record, including the forensic
reports, unmistakably demonstrates that the alleged irregularities were
confined to identifiable candidates and that segregation was not only
possible but had in fact been substantially undertaken. Therefore, the
respondents’ plea that the entire process stood irreparably tainted and
incapable of segregation is not supported by the evidence.
Consequently, the principles laid down in the judgments cited by the
respondents, instead of supporting wholesale cancellation, reinforce
the requirement of a fair, proportionate, and reasoned decision, and
thus do not enure to their benefit in the present case.
56. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned cancellation order dated 12.01.2023 cannot
be sustained in law. The same suffers from arbitrariness, non-
application of mind, absence of reasons, and failure to adopt a
proportionate course of action. Consequently, all the writ petitions
deserve to be allowed. The impugned cancellation is hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to proceed with the
recruitment process in accordance with the law by segregating tainted
and untainted candidates on the basis of available forensic material
and other records, and to complete the selection process and declare
69
the result of eligible candidates within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
57. However, such appointments shall be subject to the outcome of the
ongoing CBI inquiry/investigation. The respondent FCI is directed to
include a clear and unambiguous clause in the appointment orders
stipulating that any adverse findings emerging in the future pursuant to
the CBI inquiry/investigation may lead to appropriate legal action,
including termination of service. This safeguard ensures that the
appointments are not to be treated as final exoneration or immunity
from scrutiny.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
70
HEAD NOTE
Where irregularities in a recruitment process are confined to
identifiable candidates and segregation between tainted and
untainted candidates is feasible, wholesale cancellation of the
entire selection is arbitrary and impermissible, and the authority
must proceed by excluding only the tainted candidates.
