Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Head Clerk Exam due to Systemic Irregularities: Sachin Kumar vs. DSSSB (2021)

Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos 639 -640 of 2021 @ SLP (C) Nos. 5785-5786 of 2020
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and M R Shah, J.

Can a recruitment process be cancelled if there are systemic flaws, even if some candidates are not directly involved in the irregularities? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the cancellation of the Head Clerk exam conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). The court examined whether the decision to cancel the entire process was justified given the scale of irregularities and the need to maintain the sanctity of public recruitment. The judgment was authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, with Justice M R Shah concurring.

Case Background

In 2009, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) advertised 231 vacancies for the post of Head Clerk (Grade 2 DASS) in the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). Over 62,000 applications were received, and a two-tier examination process was set up. The Tier-I preliminary exam was held on June 29, 2014, and the Tier-II main exam on March 29, 2015. Following the declaration of results, numerous complaints of irregularities surfaced, alleging question paper leaks, mass cheating, and impersonation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) initially ruled against the cancellation of the recruitment process, stating that it should be a last resort. The Tribunal directed DSSSB to conclude the selection process based on the already conducted Tier-I and Tier-II exams. The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision but confined the relief to the six candidates who had originally approached the Tribunal. The High Court also directed these six candidates to appear for the Tier-II exam afresh.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional values under Articles 14 and 16, which mandate fairness, transparency, and accountability in public recruitment processes. The Court noted that the issue involves balancing the need to maintain the sanctity of public posts and fairness to candidates. The Court also considered the principle that a public body must act fairly and reasonably, which is a requirement of Article 14.

Arguments

Submissions by DSSSB and GNCTD:

• The entire recruitment process was tainted by fraud, making it impossible to separate tainted from untainted candidates.
• The process was vitiated due to:
  • Failure to provide admit cards to all applicants, resulting in low turnout for Tier-I.
  • A five-year delay between advertisement and exam.
  • Limited geographical coverage of candidates.
  • Discrepancies in marks between Tier-I and Tier-II exams.
  • Manipulation of randomization, leading to family members sitting together.
  • Lack of verification of educational qualifications.
  • Doubts regarding the functionality of jammers and videography.
• The decision to verify impersonation among candidates in the zone of selection was not a closure of the findings of the first committee.
• The second committee’s exoneration of a large number of candidates for impersonation did not give them a clean chit overall.
• The decision to cancel the entire process was consistent with precedents, as the examination process suffered from serious irregularities.
• The candidates were free to appear in the subsequent recruitment process with age relaxation.

Submissions by the Candidates:

• The inquiry was based on complaints from disgruntled candidates.
• There was no investigation into the authenticity of complaints.
• The recruitment process was cancelled based on surmises.
• DSSSB had submitted a detailed note clarifying that there were no irregularities.
• The decision to constitute a committee for verifying impersonation meant that the other allegations were not considered.
• The second committee had found that 281 candidates were free of taint.
• The ACB investigation was confined to only those candidates whose conduct was suspected.
• It was possible to identify and separate tainted from untainted candidates.
• The candidates who approached the Tribunal need not be required to appear for Tier-II exam again.
• The benefit of setting aside the cancellation must enure to all candidates among the group of 281 persons who were found to be free of taint.

Submissions by Intervening Candidates:

• DSSSB had indicated that there was no systematic flaw or irregularity in the recruitment process.
• The Deputy Chief Minister had accepted the recommendations of DSSSB on December 23, 2015.
• Once the issue of impersonation was investigated and sorted out through the second committee, it was possible to segregate the tainted candidates.
• All candidates forming a part of the 281 persons who have been verified by the report of the second committee would be entitled to the benefit of the order of the High Court.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the cancellation of the entire recruitment process was justified given the irregularities.
• Whether the High Court was correct in confining the relief to the six candidates who had approached the Tribunal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha & Others [ (1970) 1 SCC 648 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case established that if an examination as a whole is vitiated due to mass-scale unfair means, the board need not hold a detailed inquiry for each candidate.
• Anamica Mishra v. UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad [ (1990) Supp. SCC 692 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case highlighted that when defects are confined to a specific stage of the recruitment process (like interviews), the entire process need not be cancelled.
• Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, MP v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti [ (1998) 9 SCC 236 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that when mass copying occurs, the board is justified in cancelling the entire examination.
• Union of India v. Rajesh P U Puthuvalnikathu [ (2003) 7 SCC 285 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case stated that if irregularities can be specifically identified and the beneficiaries weeded out, there is no need to cancel the entire selection.
• Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [ (2006) 11 SCC 356 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized that when services are terminated due to corruption, the State must establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled.
• Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab [ (2014) 6 SCC 644 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that if it is possible to segregate tainted from non-tainted candidates, the entire selection process should not be set aside.
• Chairman All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K Shyam Kumar [ (2010) 6 SCC 614 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that a recruiting authority is entitled to take a bona fide view that the entire process stands vitiated and a fresh selection process should be initiated.
• State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kalaimani [ 2019 SCC Online 1002 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized that the recruiting authority’s decision to cancel the entire process based on material before it should not be interfered with lightly.
• Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat [ (2017) 13 SCC 621 ] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the State is entitled to cancel examinations when there are allegations of large-scale malpractices.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 16 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha & Others [(1970) 1 SCC 648] to emphasize that when an examination as a whole is vitiated, a detailed inquiry for each candidate is not necessary.
• The Court distinguished Anamica Mishra v. UP Public Service Commission, Allahabad [(1990) Supp. SCC 692] by noting that in the present case the irregularities were not confined to a specific stage.
• The Court relied on Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, MP v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti [(1998) 9 SCC 236] to support the view that mass copying can justify the cancellation of an entire examination.
• The Court distinguished Union of India v. Rajesh P U Puthuvalnikathu [(2003) 7 SCC 285] by noting that in the present case the irregularities were not confined to a specific group of candidates.
• The Court relied on Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [(2006) 11 SCC 356] to emphasize the need to establish that the entire process was tainted before terminating the services of employees.
• The Court relied on Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 644] to highlight that if segregation is possible, the entire process should not be set aside, but distinguished it from the present case by noting that the irregularities were systemic in nature.
• The Court relied on Chairman All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K Shyam Kumar [(2010) 6 SCC 614] to support the view that a recruiting authority is entitled to take a bona fide view that the entire process stands vitiated.
• The Court relied on State of Tamil Nadu v. A Kalaimani [2019 SCC Online 1002] to underscore that the recruiting authority’s decision should not be interfered with lightly.
• The Court relied on Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai v. State of Gujarat [(2017) 13 SCC 621] to support the view that the State is entitled to cancel examinations when there are allegations of large-scale malpractices.
• The Court used Article 14 of the Constitution of India to emphasize the need for fairness and reasonableness in administrative actions.
• The Court used Article 16 of the Constitution of India to emphasize the importance of equality of opportunity in public employment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the systemic nature of the irregularities in the recruitment process. The Court emphasized that the irregularities were not confined to individual acts of wrongdoing but rather indicated a fundamental flaw in the entire process. The Court noted that the first committee’s report highlighted issues such as the denial of equal access to the Tier-I examination, manipulation of randomization, and serious doubts about the functionality of jammers and videography. These factors, when considered cumulatively, led the Court to conclude that the entire process was vitiated.

The Court also noted that the Deputy Chief Minister was justified in going beyond the report of the second committee (which was confined to impersonation) and ultimately recommending that the entire process should be cancelled based on the findings of the first committee. The Court found that the High Court and the Tribunal had erred in focusing exclusively on the second committee’s report and ignoring the systemic nature of the violations.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that the second committee’s findings should have been conclusive. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, emphasizing that the systemic nature of the irregularities identified by the first committee could not be ignored. The Court also rejected the argument that the cancellation was unfair to the 281 candidates who were found to be free of impersonation, noting that the irregularities affected the entire process, not just specific individuals.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that public recruitment processes must maintain their integrity and command public confidence. The Court held that when the entire process is flawed, its cancellation is justified, even if it causes hardship to some candidates who may not be directly involved in the wrongdoing.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “This judgment visits a familiar conundrum in service jurisprudence. The constitutional values which undergird Articles 14 and 16 mandate that s election processes conducted by public authorities to make recruitments have to be fair, transparent and accountable.”
• “Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of system ic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in mal -practices and to penalise them for their wrong-doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong- doing on those who are free from taint.”
• “Recr uitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended t o fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be fl awed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrong- doing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrong -doing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment.”

The Court did not issue a majority or minority opinion, with both judges concurring on the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• Public recruitment processes must be fair, transparent, and accountable.
• Systemic irregularities can justify the cancellation of an entire recruitment process.
• Recruiting authorities have the discretion to cancel processes when the integrity of the process is compromised.
• It is not necessary to identify each individual involved in the wrongdoing if the entire process is vitiated.
• The focus should beon maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process, even if it causes hardship to some candidates.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sachin Kumar vs. DSSSB (2021) underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of public recruitment processes. The Court’s decision to uphold the cancellation of the Head Clerk exam highlights that systemic irregularities can justify the cancellation of an entire process, even if some candidates are not directly involved in the wrongdoing. This judgment serves as a reminder to recruiting authorities to ensure fairness and transparency in all stages of the recruitment process and to prioritize the sanctity of public posts.