Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed to set aside the impugned notice dated 26-10-2012, Chandra Dhari Singh J., opined that it became extremely difficult for the agencies conducting such examinations to determine the exact number of students engaged in such malpractices and irregularities. The Court opined that any writ could not be issued in the present case as, to maintain the sanctity of the recruitment process, the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (‘DSEU’) was well within its authority to cancel the examination process, and thus dismissed the petition.
Background
In the instant case, the respondent, DSEU was established under the rules and provisions governed by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991. On 01-11-2021, the respondents had advertised 42 vacancies for the post of Junior Assistant or Office Assistant.
Since, the petitioners were eligible candidates, they applied for the said position. The respondent stated that they will conduct Computer Based Recruitment Test (‘CBRT’) for the aforesaid post and asserted the applicant to comply with the instructions. The respondent further stated that the recruitment process as per the scheme of CBRT examination had to be conducted in two tiers, wherein the first tier will be written examination and the candidates who qualified in first tier would be shortlisted for second tier which included skill test.
Thereafter, the respondent cancelled the CBRT that was supposed to be conducted in March, 2022 and guaranteed to re-conduct the CBRT. Later, the respondents vide addendum increased the number of vacancies from 42 to 48 vacancies. Pursuant to which, new admit cards were issued to the petitioners along with their roll numbers.
Further, when the CBRT was conducted, the petitioners were shortlisted for the skill test and subsequently selected for the post of Junior Assistant. However, vide notice dated 26-10-2022, due to certain malpractices allegedly being detected in the examination process, the CBRT was again cancelled.
The petitioners contended that impugned notice dated 26-10-2022 was arbitrary and unjustified and the DSEU’s action of cancelling the entire examination was unreasonable, therefore violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The issue before the present Court was whether or not DSEU’s action of cancelling the examination was justified because there were certain irregularities and malpractices detected during the examination process.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that it was well settled principle of law that the selection process could not be tainted. Maintaining the sanctity of the selection process was of utmost importance while conducting an examination of any kind. The Court opined that any tampering with the selection process might result in suffering caused to the candidates who participated in the examination process. However, there might be certain situations wherein the nature of irregularities might be varied which made it impossible to determine the number of candidates involved in the said irregularity.
The Court relied on Sonali Shivram Dupare v. Thane District Central Coop. Bank, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 58, and opined that it was regrettable that the candidates appearing for competitive examinations had to resort to such methods in order to succeed in such examinations and as a result, the innocent and sincere students became victim of such disorderly conduct of their colleagues. Such situations leave the State or its agencies with the only option to cancel the examination altogether.
The Court observed that it became extremely difficult for the agencies conducting such examinations to determine and identify exactly how many students had been engaged in such malpractices and irregularities. The Court noted that in the present case, a computer-based examination was tampered with and opined that “the very integrity of the entire selection process was compromised and DSEU could not determine the extent to which the entire process was compromised and hence, had to resort to cancelling the entire examination process, in order to protect the sanctity of the recruitment process.”
Thus, the Court opined that any writ could not be issued in the present instant petition as DSEU was well within its authority in cancelling the examination process to maintain its sanctity and dismissed the present petition.
[Kavi Vaidwan v. Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6793, Order dated 12-10-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Anuj Aggarwal and Shreya Kukreti, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Shivendra Singh with Bikram Dwivedi, Advocates; Akshit Tyagi proxy for Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
