University Of Delhi And Anr vs Deepak And Ors

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 28.07.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 02.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010448402025
+ LPA 440/2025, CM APPL. 41850/2025, CM APPL. 41852/2025,
CM APPL. 66910/2025 & CM APPL. 26199/2026
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Appellants
versus
DEEPAK AND ORS. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Mohinder J. S. Rupal, Mr.
Hardik Rupal, Mr. Nishank Tripathi,
Ms. Harshita Sukhija, Ms. Rishika
Agarwal, Mr. Shreyan Srivastava,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Dushyant Bargava, Mr. Satish
Sharma, Ms. Bhawna Sharma, Mr.
Mukesh Kumar, Advocates for R-1
Ms. Latika Chaudhary, Advocate for
Private Respondent.
Mr. Aditya Hooda and Mr. S. S.
Hooda, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 1 of 54

JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
CM APPL. 41853/2025 ( Condonation of Delay )
1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellant seeking
condonation of delay of 02 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the
averments made in the Application, the same is allowed. The delay of 02
days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
LPA 440/2025
4. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred assailing the
judgment dated 30.05.2025 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) 581/2024 and other connected writ petitions (“ Writ
Petitions ”), filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 76, whereby the Writ Petitions
were allowed and the Notifications dated 25.08.2023 and 29.08.2023
(“ Notifications ”) issued by the Appellant University were quashed and set
aside.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. The Appellant University engaged the services of the National
Testing Agency (“ NTA ”) for conducting the written examination for
recruitment to, and filling up of, vacancies in various non-teaching posts in
the University. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued by the NTA on
behalf of the University on 23.02.2021, prescribing the period for online
submission of application forms from 23.02.2021 to 16.03.2021 and for
payment of fees up to 17.03.2021. Pursuant to the said advertisement,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 2 of 54

Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 applied for the post of Laboratory Attendant /
Library Attendant.
6. The written examination was conducted exclusively by the NTA,
without any intervention or participation of the University in the conduct of
the examination. The NTA published the list of selected candidates on
04.07.2023, wherein 151 candidates were selected, in order of merit, for the
post of Laboratory Attendant and 108 candidates were selected, in order of
merit, for the post of Library Attendant. Upon receipt of the result from the
NTA, the University published, on 18.08.2023, the list of candidates to
whom offers of appointment were issued based the result of the written
examination.
7. On 24.08.2023, nine candidates selected for the post of Laboratory
Attendant reported to the University. Upon interaction with the said
candidates, the University found that they lacked basic knowledge required
for the post for which they had been selected, despite having secured very
high marks in the examination conducted by the NTA, which included
questions relating to science and mathematics.
8. Vide Notification dated 25.08.2023, the University decided to keep
the joining of the candidates on hold. Thereafter, vide Notification dated
29.08.2023, the University notified that the matter relating to the selection of
candidates to whom offers of appointment had been issued vide letter dated
18.08.2023 was under examination and, accordingly, the joining of all such
candidates, including those who had already reported, was kept on hold.
9. On 12.01.2024, Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 filed the Writ Petitions
before the learned Single Judge of this Court challenging the Notifications
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 3 of 54

and seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the University to
permit them to join their respective posts. Vide order dated 15.01.2024,
notice was issued in the Writ Petitions and the University as well as the
NTA were directed to file their counter affidavits.
10. The NTA filed its counter affidavit on 19.03.2024, whereas the
University filed its counter affidavit on 21.03.2024. Respondent Nos. 1 to 76
filed their rejoinders on 15.04.2024. Thereafter, the University filed
additional affidavits on 22.07.2024, 28.08.2024, 25.11.2024 and 17.02.2025.
11. Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 filed consolidated written submissions on
25.02.2025, whereas the NTA filed its written submissions on 27.02.2025 in
the Writ Petitions. The University filed its common written submissions on
06.03.2025.
12. The learned Single Judge, vide the Impugned Judgment, allowed the
Writ Petitions by quashing and setting aside the Notifications and directing
the University to complete the formalities of document verification, take the
selection process to its logical conclusion by appointing Respondent Nos. 1
to 76, and permit them to join their respective places of posting forthwith,
with all consequential benefits.
13. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the University has preferred
the present Appeal.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants has made the following
submissions:
14.1. The Impugned Judgment fails to advert to, or deal with, the
judgments relied upon by the University during oral submissions
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 4 of 54

and specifically referred to in the written submissions filed on its
behalf.
14.2. The NTA filed several documents along with its written
submissions dated 27.02.2025, for the first time after judgment
had been reserved by the learned Single Judge on 19.02.2025.
Although such documents could not have been relied upon
without affording the University an opportunity to respond, the
learned Single Judge referred to and placed reliance upon the
same in the Impugned Judgment. Consequently, the University
was denied an effective opportunity of hearing and of dealing
with documents which were within the power and possession of
the NTA, being the agency entrusted with the conduct of the
examination. The NTA, having conducted the examination in
question, stood in a fiduciary position and was obliged to furnish
to the University all relevant documents pertaining to the
examination process, from issuance of the advertisement till
declaration of the results. The ultimate effect of the Impugned
Judgment is that the University has been compelled to proceed
with appointments in respect of non-teaching staff despite its
serious allegation that the examination process stood vitiated
using unfair means.
14.3. The NTA failed to produce the rough sheets of the candidates,
although such rough sheets were required to be preserved as part
of the examination record. The non-production of the said
material constitutes a serious lapse on the part of the NTA and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 5 of 54

casts doubt on its assertion that the examination was conducted
in a fair, transparent and unimpeachable manner.
14.4. The Impugned Judgment is contrary to the settled principle that
Courts, in exercise of judicial review, ought not to substitute their
own views for those of academic or expert bodies, nor sit in
appeal over decisions taken by such bodies on the basis of
material available before them.
14.5. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the NTA had
itself admitted that security arrangements at the examination
centres were entrusted to a private agency. The University had
entrusted the conduct of the examination to the NTA alone and,
therefore, the responsibility for maintaining the security and
integrity of the examination centres continued to rest with the
NTA. Such responsibility could not have been diluted or
compromised merely by engaging another agency. Although the
list of 151 selected candidates for the post of Laboratory
Attendant was prepared and forwarded by the NTA to the
University, the details of academic qualifications and other
particulars, including the contact details of the candidates, were
not initially furnished to the University. The University was,
therefore, constrained to follow up with the NTA, whereafter
only limited data was provided on 19.07.2023. On the basis of
the said data, the University prepared the Notification dated
18.08.2023 with the approval of the competent authority and
issued offers of appointment to 147 candidates in the category of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 6 of 54

Laboratory Attendant for deployment in different departments
and laboratories of the University.
14.6. When the officials of the University interacted with the
candidates selected as Laboratory Attendants, for the limited
purpose of assessing their interest and aptitude so as to determine
appropriate postings, it became apparent that there existed a
substantial gap between their basic understanding and knowledge
in the relevant fields and their performance in the written
examination, in which they had secured marks exceeding 90%.
Upon scrutiny of the documents produced by the said candidates
at the time of joining, the University also noticed that their
performance in Classes X and XII was average or below average,
and that there was a considerable time gap between completion
of their schooling and the written examination conducted by the
NTA.
14.7. The aforesaid circumstances gave rise to a serious apprehension
that unfair means may have been adopted by such candidates to
secure high marks in the written examination conducted by the
NTA. The matter was thereafter brought to the notice of senior
officials of the University and, having regard to the gravity of the
situation, the Vice-Chancellor directed that the joining of the
candidates be kept on hold, pursuant to which the Notifications
were issued.
14.8. The University, being a premier educational institution, was
under an obligation to ensure that recruitment to its non-teaching
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 7 of 54

posts was conducted in a fair, transparent and merit-based
manner, consistent with the standards expected of such an
institution. Laboratory Attendants interact with students on a
regular basis in colleges and laboratories and are likely to serve
for a substantial period. It was, therefore, imperative that their
selection be founded on merit and be free from any suspicion of
unfair means
14.9. The University had expressly notified that, in the event of any
inadvertent mistake in the selection process being detected at any
stage, including after issuance of an appointment letter, it would
be entitled to modify, withdraw or cancel any communication
made to a candidate. Once serious doubts arose regarding the
adoption of unfair means in the examination conducted by the
NTA, the University was well within its authority to keep the
joining of the candidates on hold until the issue was duly
examined and resolved.
14.10. The University constituted a Committee on 06.04.2023 for
providing information regarding additional credits to employees
working on contractual basis and for examining the issue of
suspected use of unfair means in the examination conducted by
the NTA. Since the NTA did not furnish sufficient data relating
to the categories, eligibility and examination centres of the
candidates, the Committee collected information from the
selected candidates and submitted its preliminary report in 2023
(“ 2023 Report ”). The said report disclosed a visible pattern
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 8 of 54

indicating that several selected candidates were from the same
examination centres. It further recorded that candidates who had
secured only 33% to 50% marks in Classes X and XII had
obtained marks exceeding 90% in the examination conducted by
the NTA. The preliminary report also noticed that more than 100
candidates had secured marks above 90%, with nearly 20
candidates securing approximately 95%, which was highly
improbable having regard to the scheme of examination,
including negative marking and questions drawn from a wide
range of subjects. Cumulatively, these findings raised a serious
suspicion regarding the adoption of unfair means during the
examination, thereby casting doubt upon the integrity of the
selection process.
14.11. The preliminary report was forwarded to the NTA for its
comments. However, the response furnished by the NTA, vide
letter dated 26.10.2023, was cursory in nature. The NTA denied
the use of unfair means in the examination in a mechanical
manner, merely stating that all standard procedures and protocols
had been followed. Accordingly, the University constituted
another Committee vide Notification dated 28.11.2023 and
sought relevant data from the NTA vide email dated 09.02.2024.
The said data was furnished on 16.08.2024 and included question
papers, response sheets of candidates, examination centre details
and confirmation pages of qualified candidates.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 9 of 54

14.12. The analysis of the data furnished by the NTA revealed a
matching pattern of responses amongst candidates from the
suspected centres. The second Committee submitted its report in
2024 (“ 2024 Report ”), setting out a similarity index in respect of
selected candidates from the identified centres, which disclosed
similarity of up to 80% and a corresponding pattern in both
correct and incorrect responses. According to the University, the
said material established that the examination stood
compromised by the adoption of unfair means.
14.13. The stand of the NTA that the methodology adopted by the
University for data analysis was flawed is liable to be rejected.
The second Committee undertook a detailed analysis based on
centre-wise data, the number of selected candidates, the total
number of candidates who appeared at the suspected centres, and
the relative percentage of selection from such centres. The
Committee analysed the response sheets of the selected
candidates by adopting methods including visual inspection of
colour-coded responses, similarity calculations based on response
sheets, and examination of visual similarities in incorrect
answers. During such analysis, it was found that the groups
emerging from the percentage-similarity calculation were
identical to those identified through visual inspection of colour-
coded responses. Further scrutiny disclosed a clearly discernible
pattern in the incorrect answers of candidates from the suspected
centres. In view of these material findings, it was submitted that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 10 of 54

the University was justified in keeping the joining of the selected
candidates in abeyance, and that the legal infirmity found by the
learned Single Judge was unsustainable.
14.14. The University offered the selected candidates an opportunity to
undergo a fresh written test in order to demonstrate their merit
and suitability for appointment. The said offer was, however,
declined by the candidates, which, according to the University,
further supported its apprehension regarding the fairness of the
selection process.
14.15. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that several
selected candidates had furnished places of residence situated in
different cities, yet had appeared from the suspected centres. This
circumstance, according to the University, raised a serious doubt
regarding the fairness and proper conduct of the examination by
the NTA.
14.16. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that the concentration
of toppers in certain centres could be explained by the fact that
such centres were situated in urban areas or coaching hubs. It
was submitted that, among the twelve suspected centres, the
highest number of selected candidates emerged from Chandigarh
and Shimla, which could not reasonably be treated as
metropolitan cities or established coaching hubs so as to explain
such concentration. Further, the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate that the University did not rely merely upon the
concentration of toppers at particular centres, but arrived at its
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 11 of 54

conclusion after undertaking a more detailed analysis of the
pattern of correct and incorrect responses, as well as the
circumstance that several candidates had appeared from centres
not conveniently situated in relation to their places of residence.
14.17. The learned Single Judge erred in relying upon the analysis
conducted by the NTA on the basis of global data, whereas the
ratios and conclusions arrived at by the University were based on
the data of selected candidates from the identified centres who
were suspected to have adopted unfair means.
14.18. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that the University had
confined its analysis only to selected candidates and limited
suspected centres. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate
that the University proceeded on the basis of the data made
available by the NTA and focused upon those candidates whose
results, according to the University, reflected indicators of
manipulation sufficient to warrant further scrutiny. The
University’s case was that unfair means are ordinarily adopted
with the object of securing success in the examination, and
therefore the analysis of successful candidates from centres
showing abnormal patterns was a relevant and permissible
exercise.
14.19. The learned Single Judge, according to the University, altered the
very premise on which its analysis was founded by placing
reliance on the data pertaining to all candidates and all centres.
The focus of the University was on the twelve centres from
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 12 of 54

which a disproportionately large number of candidates for the
post of Laboratory Attendant had been selected. By relying upon
data pertaining to all centres, the learned Single Judge negated
the University’s contention without adequately considering the
specific pattern emerging from the identified centres.
14.20. The learned Single Judge failed to deal with the specific
contentions advanced by the University and instead relied upon
the examples cited by the NTA to contend that there had been no
breach of protocol at any examination centre. According to the
University, the Impugned Judgment did not specifically examine
the centres identified by it as suspect centres or the peculiar
response patterns emerging therefrom.
14.21. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the law laid down
in the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
the matter of Manish Dabas v. University of Delhi (LPA No.
39/2007), which observed as under:
“ 23. In view of our aforesaid discussion, there is hardly
any reason to take a view different than the one taken by
the learned Single Judge. If the contention of the
appellants is accepted, viz., there should be a direct
evidence of cheating, i.e., either the candidate should be
caught red-handed by the invigilator or in a case like the
present one there should be some link established between
the appellants and the persons who were caught red-
handed, it would mean ignoring all the other
circumstances which categorically establish unusual
similarity in the pattern in which all these candidates
answered the questions. The circumstances, as pointed out
above, can be glossed over and they are adequate to form
basis for a reasonable person with ordinary prudence to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 13 of 54

draw the legitimate inference of cheating/unfair means
used by the appellants in the said examination.
24. It is stated at the cost of repetition that the experts in
the field, namely, those conversant with the intricacies
and nuances of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics
would know better that same pattern of obtaining marks
by all these candidates is highly unusual and cannot be
present unless there is cheating. Once such a conclusion
is arrived at by the experts, it is not in for this Court to
interfere with the same unless it is shown that there is
perversity in those findings. We find none.
26. In so far as the first contention is concerned, while
rejecting the same, the only observation which we would
like to make is that various similarities were found in the
QPBs of these candidates, as highlighted above. We again
reiterate that as per the experts, finding of such
similarities, namely, answering same questions; ticking
same options while giving wrong answers to same
questions would be very unusual and is possible only if
there is some link between them through some unfair
methodology. When this is accepted which was primary
consideration to draw a reasonable conclusion about
adoption of unfair means, there was nothing wrong for the
Court to take additional circumstances like the results of
these candidates in CBSE and the performance of these
candidates in other entrance examinations, to cement that
conclusion. It was permissible for the Court to take these
factors into consideration while refusing to exercise
discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the appellants
under Article 226 of the Constitution. ”
14.22. The learned Single Judge wrongly distinguished the facts of
Manish Dabas ( supra ) by observing that use of unfair means
was found, where two candidates were caught by the invigilators
at the respective examination centres and mobile phones were
recovered.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 14 of 54

14.23. The learned Single Judge also failed to consider the judgment of
Varun Bharadwaj v. State Bank of India 2015 SCC OnLine Del
13636, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court upheld the
scientific test regarding the probability levels of a pair of
candidates attempting the wrong answers simultaneously in
multiple choice examination for recruitment. In Paragraph No. 7
of the said judgment, similar contentions, as raised by the NTA
and Respondent Nos. 1 to 76, were raised that no material or
objective evidence was established to link the selected candidates
with the use of unfair means. Despite that, the Court proceeded
based on methodology of application of a statistical model and
held as under:
“ 26. The Court is conscious that technology often
empowers citizens; at the same time it has the potential to
facilitate misuse. In the context of the facts of this case,
this Court is not persuaded with the appellant’s
submission that without tangible material or evidence, the
SBI could not have inferred the employment of “unfair
means” by candidates generally and the petitioner in
particular. Use of electronic devices to transmit
information – either in the form of text messages or by use
of hidden listening devices which go undetected may be
hard to establish. That does not mean that patterns which
are discernible and are thrown up on application of
scientific formulae or statistical models, which leads to
further examination of the primary material should be
eliminated by the Courts. In the present case, the pattern
which emerged showed that the appellant’s results in
respect of wrong answers matched with some other
candidates who also appeared in the New Delhi centre.
On further scrutiny, the reasonableness of the suspicion
was strengthened by the manner of his attempting the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 15 of 54

answers. These, in the opinion of the Court, were
sufficient basis for the SBI to conclude that unfair means
had been employed and withhold his result. The directions
sought are, therefore, unavailable in exercise of judicial
review discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. As
a result, this Court finds that the impugned judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge does not call for
interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without
any order as to costs. ”
14.24. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that both Manish
Dabas ( supra ) and Varun Bharadwaj ( supra ) relied upon the
formula, which led the Division Bench of this Court to safely
arrive at the conclusion that there was use of unfair means
without getting into the mode or method of the use of unfair
means. Further, both these judgments have attained finality.
14.25. The learned Single Judge did not appreciate the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate
Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 631,
wherein it has been held that sufficiency of material on the basis
of which a decision is taken by an authority is not within the
purview of High Court in exercising its power of judicial review
unless it stands vitiated on the ground of unreasonableness and
proportionality. It was further held that where the nature of the
wrongdoing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously
impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have
been held for recruitment.
14.26. In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, it has
been held that the candidate included in the merit list has no
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 16 of 54

indefeasible right to appointment even if a vacancy exists. It was
further held that ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an
invitation to the qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and
on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post and
the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the
vacancies so long as the said decision is taken bona fide for
appropriate reasons.
14.27. In State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors. (2025) 7
SCC 705, it was held that the State was justified in cancelling a
selection process based on larger public interest. It was further
held that the decision by the successor Government in cancelling
the selection process was not disproportionate and
incommensurate with the illegalities / irregularities detected and
such decision could not have been interfered with by exercising
writ jurisdiction by the High Court.
14.28. In view of the above, the Impugned Judgment deserves to be set
aside and the Writ Petitions be dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 76
15. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 made the following
submissions:
15.1. The examination was conducted by the NTA strictly in
accordance with the scheme of examination prescribed in the
advertisement dated 23.02.2021 issued by the University. The
said scheme did not contemplate any interaction, interview or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 17 of 54

personality assessment by either the NTA or the University as a
component of the selection process.
15.2. The offers of appointment dated 18.08.2023 were issued only
after verification of the candidates’ results and on the
recommendation of a duly constituted Committee of the
University. Pursuant thereto, nine Laboratory Attendants joined
their duties. Thereafter, by Notification dated 25.08.2023, the
University placed the joining of the remaining candidates on hold
without assigning any reasons. Subsequently, by Notification
dated 29.08.2023, the appointments of the candidates who had
already joined were also placed on hold, again without disclosure
of reasons.
15.3. Notice was issued in the Writ Petitions on 15.01.2024 and the
University filed its counter affidavit on 31.03.2024. However, the
said counter affidavit, filed nearly seven months after issuance of
the Notifications, did not contain any reference to a suspicion
regarding use of unfair means or to the constitution of any
enquiry committee. It was only in the second counter affidavit
filed on 22.07.2024 that the University, for the first time, alleged
use of unfair means and referred to constitution of a Committee
to examine such suspicion. On 29.07.2024, the University placed
the interim minutes of the Committee before the learned Single
Judge in a sealed cover and sought four weeks’ time to complete
the enquiry. Thereafter, on 31.07.2024, the University addressed
a communication to the NTA seeking data pertaining to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 18 of 54

examination, which was furnished by the NTA on 16.08.2024. It
was, therefore, submitted that the enquiry undertaken by the
University was an afterthought intended to justify the impugned
Notifications.
15.4. The aforesaid chronology demonstrates that no suspicion
regarding use of unfair means existed when the Notifications
were issued, notwithstanding the University’s subsequent
assertion that such suspicion arose when certain candidates
reported for joining. It was emphasised that only nine out of 147
candidates had reported for joining, and the University could not
have drawn an adverse inference against all selected candidates
based on an alleged interaction with those nine candidates alone.
It was further submitted that there is no material on record
indicating who interacted with the said candidates, what
questions were put to them, the manner in which their knowledge
or qualifications were assessed, or whether any record of such
interaction was prepared contemporaneously.
15.5. In fact, there was such interaction and that the plea subsequently
advanced by the University was an afterthought devised to
protect the interests of its contractual employees. Reliance was
placed on the letter dated 21.09.2023 issued by the University to
the President of the Delhi University and College Karamchari
Union, which reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 19 of 54

15.6. A perusal of the aforesaid letter demonstrates that the issuance of
the Notifications was directly connected with the protest by
contractual employees of the University, in whose place
Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 had been appointed.
15.7. Having regard to the nature of duties attached to the post of
Laboratory Attendant, which primarily involve cleaning
apparatus and maintaining equipment, the University could not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 20 of 54

have insisted upon candidates possessing a higher level of
academic knowledge, nor could their suitability have been
reassessed through any subsequent interaction not contemplated
under the notified selection process.
15.8. The investigation report prepared by the University did not
disclose any direct evidence of use of unfair means by any
candidate. On the contrary, the University sought to rely upon an
ex post facto analysis in order to create an appearance of
suspicion and justify a decision already taken.
15.9. As regards the allegation that a disproportionately large number
of candidates had been selected from certain examination centres
as compared to others, such circumstance could not, by itself,
lead to an inference that the integrity of the examination process
had been breached. Larger examination centres necessarily
accommodate a greater number of candidates, whereas smaller
centres have limited capacity and, therefore, a higher number of
selected candidates from larger centres were not inherently
suspicious.
15.10. The examination centres situated in urban areas or coaching hubs
would naturally have a higher concentration of candidates
receiving similar preparation. In any event, candidates were
permitted to indicate only three preferred cities while filling up
their application forms and had no role in the actual allocation of
examination centres, which was undertaken by the NTA. It was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 21 of 54

also submitted that the selected candidates were not allotted
examination centres in any of the three cities preferred by them.
15.11. The University’s further ground of suspicion that several
candidates secured very high marks despite the existence of
negative marking, was submitted to be a matter of conjecture as
the candidates may secure near-perfect scores in competitive
examinations notwithstanding negative marking and, therefore,
the mere existence of negative marking does not, ipso facto ,
furnish a basis to suspect the use of unfair means.
15.12. The University’s reliance upon alleged 80% similarity in answer
choices, similarity in correct and incorrect response patterns, and
the nature of incorrect answers was entirely based on an ex post
facto analysis and was impermissible. Reliance was placed on
Staff Selection Commission v. Sudesh , 2014 SCC OnLine Del
7534, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that
selected candidates could not be condemned based on vague and
non-specific allegations of a serious nature. It was submitted that
there must be a disclosed pattern capable of leading to a
reasonable inference, with a very high degree of probability or
near certainty, of cheating or malpractice, which was absent in
the present case.
15.13. The further suspicion expressed by the University, based on
candidates with comparatively lower educational qualifications
having cleared the examination, was also submitted to be
misconceived. The prescribed qualification for the post was only
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 22 of 54

Class X pass. If the University intended to insist upon a higher
qualification, it was open to it to prescribe the same in the
advertisement; however, no such higher qualification was
prescribed. In any event, the allegation was factually incorrect, as
the list of successful candidates and their respective
qualifications did not support the University’s contention.
15.14. Reliance was also placed on Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India
& Ors. , (2024) 9 SCC 743, wherein the Supreme Court
delineated the tests for determining the propriety of cancellation
of an examination process as under:
a. Whether the alleged breach took place at a systemic level?
b. Whether the breach is of a nature which affects the integrity
of the entire examination process?
c. Whether it is possible to segregate the beneficiaries of the
fraud from the untainted students?
15.15. Applying the aforesaid tests, the investigation reports prepared
by the University did not answer any of the above questions in
the affirmative. The University was, therefore, not justified in
cancelling the entire selection process to the prejudice of
Respondent Nos. 1 to 76, as has been correctly held by the
learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgment.
15.16. The NTA had followed stringent security protocols while
conducting the examination in question, including securing the
preparation, storage and transmission of the question papers;
randomisation of candidates during scheduling at examination
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 23 of 54

centres; randomisation of questions displayed on candidates’
screens; deployment of independent observers; installation of
CCTV cameras and jammers; multi-level biometric verification;
frisking of candidates; live feeds from examination centres;
deployment of virtual observers and adequate invigilators; and
secure transfer of candidates’ responses from the examination
centres to the NTA. In addition, the result was validated by an
independent third party.
15.17. In view of the aforesaid extensive scrutiny and security
protocols, mere conjectures and surmises on the part of the
University could not constitute a sufficient basis for returning a
finding that the integrity of the examination process had been
breached. It was further submitted that the University did not
request any investigating agency, including the Police or the
Central Bureau of Investigation, to examine the alleged
malpractice or cheating, which itself indicated that even the
University lacked any firm basis for alleging malpractice in the
examination.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF NTA
16. The learned Counsel for the NTA made the following submissions:
16.1. The NTA conducted the examination for recruitment to six non-
teaching posts of the University in computer based test from
18.03.2023 to 21.03.2023, in two shifts, at 87 examination
centres across 36 cities in the country, for 1,15,997 candidates.
Out of the said 87 examination centres, 64 centres were utilised
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 24 of 54

for the post of Laboratory Attendant and 37 centres were utilised
for the post of Library Attendant.
16.2. On 01.07.2023, a meeting of the Result Committee was
convened, wherein the results of the examination were
considered and approved. Out of 7,058 registered candidates for
the post of Library Attendant, 108 candidates were selected.
Likewise, out of 30,447 registered candidates for the post of
Laboratory Attendant, 151 candidates were selected. Prior to
finalisation of the results, the NTA detected two cases of
malpractice involving impersonation, and the candidature of the
said two candidates was cancelled. Accordingly, the results were
declared on 04.07.2023, along with the list of finally selected
candidates, in order of merit, for the posts of Library Attendant
and Laboratory Attendant.
16.3. The NTA adopted several measures for the safe and secure
conduct of the examination in order to ensure its sanctity and
integrity. Invigilators were deployed in the ratio of 1:30, and, in
all, 3,867 invigilators were deployed by the Exam Delivery
Agency engaged by the NTA.
16.4. The NTA further ensured deployment of observers in the ratio of
1:300 for the examination. In all, 387 observers were deployed,
out of whom 18 observers were faculty members of the
University.
16.5. The NTA had randomised the questions so that the same question
was not displayed on the computer screens of all candidates at
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 25 of 54

the same time. It was submitted that the examination process was
designed and implemented to ensure fairness, security and
integrity at every stage. The examination was conducted over a
secure LAN network, with external connections blocked and
encrypted delivery of question papers ensured. Examination
centres and seating arrangements were allocated randomly. The
responses of candidates were securely transmitted to the main
server; password-protected firewalls were installed on all client
machines; and biometric verification, CCTV monitoring,
independent observers, third-party evaluation of results and
scrutiny of answer-key challenges were adopted to strengthen the
examination process.
16.6. No incident was reported indicating any breach of the safeguards
or failure of the mechanism adopted for the conduct of the
examination. According to the NTA, the measures adopted by it
were sufficient to eliminate the possibility of unfair means in the
conduct of the CBT examination.
16.7. The Committee constituted by the University adopted
inappropriate tools of analysis and relied upon incomplete and
selective data, thereby rendering its conclusions erroneous and
untenable. It was submitted that the Committee’s conclusions
were founded solely on inferences drawn from the data of
candidates from centres treated as suspect merely because
candidates from those centres had performed better. The
identification of such centres was stated to be flawed and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 26 of 54

illogical in the absence of any tangible material indicating
commission of malpractice. It was contended that examination
centres could not be treated as suspect based on perceptions,
inferences or probabilities without any specific material
indicating the manner in which malpractice had occurred.
16.8. The conclusions drawn by the Committee were based on
conjectures and surmises, as the data relied upon by it did not
correspond with the independent analysis undertaken by the
NTA. According to the NTA, the variance between the
University’s analysis and the conclusions arrived at by the NTA
demonstrated that the Committee’s report could not form a
reliable basis for concluding that the examination had been
compromised.
16.9. The conclusion that a large number of successful candidates had
opted for similar correct and incorrect answers was stated to be
factually erroneous. Since the question papers did not follow the
same series or pattern, and the questions were randomised
separately for different candidates, the conclusion arrived at by
the University was submitted to be without basis. It was further
contended that candidate performance ought to have been
assessed with reference to all candidates appearing at a particular
centre, and not based on successful candidates alone.
16.10. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it was contended that the
report of the Committee constituted by the University was rightly
not accepted by the learned Single Judge, as the same did not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 27 of 54

constitute a conclusive or reliable report establishing malpractice
in the examination.
ANALYSIS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
17. The learned Single Judge, after examining the law governing the
scope of judicial interference and the parameters applicable to cancellation
of examinations in Tata Cellular v. Union of India , (1994) 6 SCC 651;
Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar ,
2010 SCC OnLine SC 579; Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v.
Wednesbury Corporation , [1948] 1 K.B. 223; Sachin Kumar v. Delhi
Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) ( supra ); Anamica Mishra v.
U.P. Public Service Commission , 1989 SCC OnLine SC 414; Union of
India v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu , (2003) 7 SCC 285; Inderpreet
Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab , (2006) 11 SCC 356; Vanshika Yadav
( supra ); and State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Kalaimani , (2021) 16 SCC 217,
culled out the principles governing judicial review of an examination
process as under:
 Judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and does not
extend to an appellate examination of the merits of the decision.
 A challenge to an examination process cannot be treated as an appeal on
merits.
 Although the purity of an examination process is of paramount
importance, cancellation of an examination may be justified only where
allegations disclose large-scale malpractice, fraud, leakage of question
papers, mass copying, exchange of bribes or similar serious irregularities
affecting the conduct of the examination.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 28 of 54

 The Court may interfere only where the examination process is shown to
be arbitrary, improper or irrational.
 Procedural impropriety would include breach of natural justice, bad faith
or bias.
 Irrationality, in the Wednesbury sense, refers to a decision so
unreasonable and defiant of logic that no reasonable authority, properly
directing itself to the issue, could have arrived at it.
 For determining whether an examination process stands vitiated, it is
necessary to ascertain whether the irregularities occurred at a systemic
level to affect the sanctity of the process.
Cancellation of the entire examination process would be justified only

where a systemic flaw is established.
 A finding of systemic infirmity must be specific and categorical, and
supported by concrete and relevant material establishing widespread and
pervasive irregularities capable of undermining the examination process.
 It must further be determined, based on material gathered through a fair,
transparent and thorough enquiry, that the illegalities go to the root of the
matter and vitiate the selection process in its entirety.
 There must also be satisfaction, based on the material available, that the
irregularity affected a substantial number of candidates or otherwise
tainted the process at a systemic level.
 The material on record must indicate systemic malaise and not merely
isolated or speculative irregularities.
 Cancellation of the examination should ordinarily be sustained only
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 29 of 54

where it is not possible to segregate tainted candidates from untainted
candidates.
18. The learned Single Judge found that, despite filing multiple affidavits,
the University had failed to establish the identity of the officials who
allegedly interacted with the Laboratory Attendants who reported pursuant
to the offers of appointment. It was further held that the process of
interview, interaction or personality assessment was contrary to the selection
procedure prescribed in the advertisement.
19. The learned Single Judge further observed that the alleged
incompetence of a few candidates could not justify an inference that the
remaining selected candidates, who had not even reported for joining, were
incompetent or lacked the requisite knowledge to secure high scores in the
examination, in the absence of material establishing the same.
20. The learned Single Judge also noticed that, until issuance of the
Notification dated 25.08.2023, no complaint regarding the conduct of the
examination by the NTA had been made either by any unsuccessful
candidate or by any third party.
21. The learned Single Judge observed that the 2023 Report was based on
the Committee’s analysis of centres at Delhi, Chandigarh and Shimla, and
recorded the University’s conclusion that toppers in the merit list were
concentrated in a few centres with nil or minimal representation from larger
States such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan. The Impugned Judgment
also noticed the University’s reliance upon the disparity between the marks
obtained by successful candidates in Classes X and XII and the percentage
secured by them in the NTA examination, which carried negative marking.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 30 of 54

However, the learned Single Judge found the said justification insufficient
for keeping the joining of selected candidates on hold.
22. The learned Single Judge further held that although the 2024
Committee had undertaken data analysis by using standard technological
tools such as Microsoft Excel and Python, the analysis was confined to
suspected centres and selected candidates and, therefore, proceeded on an
erroneous premise.
23. The learned Single Judge observed that the University appeared to
have acted under the possible extraneous influence of the Delhi University
and College Karamchari Union while keeping the joining of selected
candidates on hold and thereafter resorted to a process of reverse
engineering to generate material in support of its allegation of use of unfair
means. This conclusion was founded on the fact that the University filed
successive affidavits from time to time to establish the alleged use of unfair
means by selected candidates and their modus operandi for securing high
scores. The learned Single Judge found the conclusions drawn by the
University Committee to be hypothetical, and held that the University had
failed to discharge its burden of proving that the entire examination process
stood compromised.
24. The learned Single Judge placed considerable reliance upon the
explanation furnished by the NTA and held that, in view of the security
protocols implemented by it, there was no possibility of malpractice in the
conduct of the examination. The Impugned Judgment accordingly proceeded
on the premise that the examination was not susceptible to unfair means or
malpractice in view of the rigorous safeguards stated to be in place.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 31 of 54

25. The learned Single Judge further held that the data-analysis exercise
undertaken by the University was merely a device to justify its earlier
decision to stall the joining of selected candidates and did not inspire
confidence. On that basis, it was held that the University had failed to
establish the use of unfair means in the examination.
26. Consequently, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the
Notifications and directed the University to complete the remaining
formalities of document verification, appoint the selected candidates, and
permit them to join their respective posts forthwith, along with all
consequential benefits.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
27. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties, examined the material placed on record, and perused the
Impugned Judgment. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the
reasoning recorded in the Impugned Judgment, we are unable to concur with
the view taken by the learned Single Judge, for the reasons set out
hereinafter.
28. The settled principles governing judicial review of examination
processes confer due deference upon the employer or recruiting authority in
determining whether illegality, procedural impropriety, widespread
malpractice or systemic infirmity has vitiated the examination process,
particularly where it may not be possible to segregate tainted candidates
from untainted candidates. Such deference, however, is predicated upon the
employer forming its satisfaction based on cogent material available on
record. Accordingly, before cancelling or withholding the implementation of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 32 of 54

a selection process, the employer must be satisfied, on relevant and credible
material, that the integrity of the examination has been compromised at a
systemic level.
29. In the present case, the University conducted the investigation in the
purported malpractices in the examination conducted by NTA by appointing
the Committee constituted for that purpose. The Committee noticed that the
successful candidates were disproportionately concentrated in a few specific
examination centres, while there was nil or minimal representation from
larger States. In an examination conducted on a pan-India basis, such
concentration was a circumstance which required closer scrutiny,
particularly when the allocation of centres was undertaken by the NTA and
not by the candidates themselves. The Committee further noticed a
substantial disparity between the marks secured by several successful
candidates in Classes X and XII and the marks obtained by them in the
examination conducted by the NTA. It also found that more than 100
candidates had secured marks exceeding 90%, with nearly 20 candidates
obtaining approximately 95%, despite the examination carrying negative
marking and consisting of questions from varied subjects.
30. The Committee also found a visible pattern in the correct as well as
incorrect responses of candidates from the suspected centres, and noticed
that such candidates had not left any questions without attempting. In the
context of an objective examination, particularly one involving negative
marking, the absence of any questions that are not attempted, when coupled
with commonality in incorrect answers and high scores from the same
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 33 of 54

centres, was a relevant circumstance for assessing whether the declared
result reflected genuine merit.
31. Considering the overall circumstances, we find that these findings
were not based merely on subjective impressions, but on data analysis
undertaken by the Committee and placed on record in the form of colour-
coded Excel sheets and other comparative material. The material so
produced, therefore, furnished a cogent basis for the University to establish
serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the examination process.
32. Further, the University was justified in analysing the data pertaining
to the suspected centres, which were identified on the basis that at least three
successful candidates had emerged from each of the said centres. The object
of the exercise was not to undertake an abstract statistical study of the entire
examination, but to examine whether the merit list, to the extent it reflected
an abnormal concentration of successful candidates from suspected centres,
disclosed indicators of manipulation or adoption of unfair means. Once the
concern of the University arose from the concentration of selected
candidates at specific centres, it was both reasonable and permissible for the
Committee to focus its scrutiny on those centres where such concentration
was found.
33. The centres from which no candidate was selected, or from which no
meaningful cluster of selected candidates emerged, were not required to be
examined as such centres did not contribute to the impugned merit pattern
which had prompted the inquiry. The purpose of the Committee’s analysis
was to assess the credibility of the selection of successful candidates and not
to determine, in isolation, whether every examination centre in the country
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 34 of 54

had functioned without any irregularity. In cases of suspected examination
malpractice, the inquiry may legitimately be centred on the class of
candidates and centres which reveal statistically unusual or otherwise
suspicious features. Such a focused inquiry cannot be characterised as
selective merely because it did not extend, with equal detail, to centres from
which no candidate was selected or from which no abnormal pattern
emerged.
34. Accordingly, we of the view that the methodology adopted by the
University cannot be rejected solely on the ground that it did not analyse all
candidates across all centres. The relevant question was whether the selected
candidates from the identified centres displayed patterns which, when tested
against the available data, gave rise to a reasonable inference that the
examination process had been compromised.
35. A perusal of the Memo of Parties of this Appeal indicates that a
substantial number of Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 are residents of limited
geographical belts, namely the districts or nearby areas of Sonipat,
Mahendragarh, Jind, Hisar, Jhajjar, Bhiwani and Rohtak in the State of
Haryana; Dausa, Alwar, Sawai Madhopur and Karauli in the State of
Rajasthan; and Chapra in the State of Bihar. This circumstance assumes
significance in the context of the scale and nature of the examination, which
was conducted on a pan-India basis. In such a large recruitment
examination, drawing candidates from across the country, the emergence of
a disproportionately large number of successful candidates from a few
contiguous or proximate regions was not an ordinary feature and was rightly
treated by the University as a matter requiring closer examination.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 35 of 54

36. The improbability is further confirmed by the fact that the selected
candidates were not merely from one State but were concentrated within
specific districts or localities of a few States, notwithstanding that the
examination was open to candidates across the country. Such concentration
of successful candidates from limited geographical pockets, when viewed in
conjunction with other material circumstances noticed by the Committee,
constituted a relevant circumstance supporting the University’s decision to
subject the fairness of the selection process to further scrutiny. A tabular
statement indicating the relevant residential details of Respondent Nos. 1 to
76 as per the Memo or Parties of this Appeal is as under:
State of Haryana
Name of
the cities
Sonipat Jind Hisar Mahendragarh Bhiwani Jhajjar Rohtak
Respondent
Nos.
5, 6, 7,
17, 18,
22, 36,
37, 40,
47, 50,
55, 58,
69, 72
& 76.
13,
14,
21,
31,
59,
70,
71 &
75.
1, 2, 20,
33 &
42.
10, 24, 26, 30,
41, 57 & 64.
8, 34,
35, 45,
65 & 67.
3, 9,
16, 19
& 28.
38, 49
& 52.
State of Rajasthan
Name of
the cities
Dausa Alwar Sawai Madhopur Karauli
Respondent
Nos.
29, 44, 46, 54, 68 &
73
51,62 & 74 60, 61 & 48 56 & 66.
State of Bihar
Name of the city Chapra
Respondent Nos. 4, 39 & 43
37. The aforesaid tabulation, when read in conjunction with the material
produced by the University, demonstrates that the present case is not one of
an ordinary, incidental or statistically insignificant clustering of successful
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 36 of 54

candidates. The examination in question was conducted on a pan-India basis
at 87 examination centres spread across 36 cities and involved 1,15,997
candidates for six non-teaching posts. Out of the said 87 examination
centres, 64 centres were utilised for the post of Laboratory Attendant and 37
centres were utilised for the post of Library Attendant. In such a large-scale
recruitment exercise, where candidates from different parts of the country
were eligible to participate and where allocation of examination centres was
undertaken by the NTA, the emergence of a substantial number of
successful candidates from only a few geographical belts within three States
is highly improbable.
38. While the mere fact that several successful candidates belong to
particular regions may not, by itself, be determinative of malpractice, if it is
examined along with the other features noticed by the Committees,
including the concentration of such candidates at identified centres,
unusually high scores despite negative marking, similarity in response
patterns and commonality in incorrect answers, clearly indicates probability
of existence of malpractice.
39. The improbability is further enhanced by the fact that several
successful candidates belonged to places situated away from the centres
which were identified as suspect centres. Although such concentration,
viewed in isolation, may not be conclusive of malpractice, when examined
cumulatively with the other circumstances noticed by the Committee,
furnished a legitimate and reasonable basis for the University to undertake a
further examination of the serious doubt regarding the sanctity of the
examination process.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 37 of 54

40. The aforesaid circumstances provide substantial support to the
conclusions drawn by the Committee constituted by the University. The
Committee did not proceed merely based on suspicion arising from high
scores but also examined the response patterns of successful candidates from
the identified centres. The findings recorded by the Committee indicate a
discernible pattern not only in the correct answers, but also in the incorrect
answers attempted by such candidates.
41. In the context of a multiple-choice examination, commonality in
incorrect responses, particularly where such commonality is repeatedly
found amongst a cluster of successful candidates from the same examination
centres, constitutes a circumstance of considerable evidentiary significance.
We are of the view that such material cannot be brushed aside as conjectural
merely on the ground that there is no direct evidence of copying or that no
candidate was apprehended during the examination while resorting to unfair
means.
42. The justification advanced by the NTA that adequate security
measures had been implemented, including randomisation, CCTV
surveillance, biometric verification, deployment of invigilators and
observers, and use of secured computer systems, does not, in our considered
view, sufficiently answer the material findings recorded by the Committee
constituted by the University.
43. The existence of security protocols is undoubtedly a relevant
circumstance; however, it cannot be treated as conclusive proof that the
examination process was incapable of being compromised. Where,
notwithstanding such safeguards, the post-examination data reveals a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 38 of 54

consistent and abnormal pattern of success from identified centres, coupled
with similarity in response patterns and commonality in incorrect answers,
the Court cannot presume the examination process to be unimpeachable
merely because standard protocols were stated to have been followed.
44. Further, the fact that the NTA engaged an external Exam Delivery
Agency for certain critical aspects of the conduct of the examination cannot
be disregarded. The responsibility to ensure the fairness, security and
integrity of the examination continued to rest with the NTA and, therefore,
the NTA was required to demonstrate that effective supervision, control and
accountability were maintained at every stage of the examination process. In
the present case, however, the NTA merely relied upon adherence to
standard protocols and did not meaningfully address the analytical material
placed on record by the University. Consequently, the NTA failed to
displace the specific findings recorded by the Committee constituted by the
University.
45. We are also unable to agree with the finding of the learned Single
Judge that, since no complaint of malpractice existed on the date of issuance
of the Notifications, the subsequent enquiry could not be relied upon. The
absence of a prior complaint does not preclude an employer from acting
upon circumstances which come to its notice at the stage of joining. The
interaction with the nine candidates, who reported pursuant to the offers of
appointment was not considered the University as a part of the selection
process, but merely as a trigger for the University to examine whether the
results declared by the NTA reflected the true merit of the candidates.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 39 of 54

46. At the stage when the Notifications were issued, a final finding of
malpractice could not reasonably have existed as the same can only emerge
after examining the relevant data and undertaking a complete analysis of the
available evidence. Therefore, the subsequent enquiry cannot be rejected
merely on the ground that it was undertaken after the joining was put on
hold.
47. The observation in the Impugned Judgment that the University
indulged in reverse engineering to justify its decision to stall the joining of
the selected candidates also does not commend acceptance. The material on
record shows that the University constituted Committees to examine the
issue, sought data from the NTA, analysed the response sheets and placed its
conclusions before the Court. The fact that further material was gathered
after the initial decision to withhold joining does not, by itself, render the
exercise mala fide or colourable.
48. In cases involving suspected examination malpractice, particularly
where the alleged irregularity may be reflected only through response
patterns or statistical improbabilities, the relevant material would ordinarily
become available only upon a detailed post-result analysis. The reports of
the Committees disclosed identifiable parameters and examples, including
centre-wise concentration, similarity indices and matching incorrect
answers, which cannot be characterised as a mere afterthought or as
speculative material without examining their cumulative effect.
49. The submission of Respondent Nos. 1 to 76, as also the observation of
the learned Single Judge, that the decision to put the joining of the selected
candidates on hold was influenced by the protest of the Delhi University and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 40 of 54

College Karamchari Union, may appear attractive at first instance in view of
the letter dated 21.09.2023 addressed by the University to the Union.
However, the mere fact that the University informed the Union about the
decision already taken to keep the joining of newly recruited Laboratory
Attendants and Library Attendants on hold is not sufficient to hold that the
decision itself was actuated by extraneous considerations. The legality of the
University’s action must be tested based on the material which ultimately
emerged from the enquiry and the reasons which weighed with the
competent authority.
50. The reports of the Committees disclose concrete circumstances,
including abnormal centre-wise concentration of successful candidates,
matching response patterns and similarity in incorrect answers, which
provide an independent basis for the University’s concern regarding the
integrity of the examination. These circumstances cannot be ignored merely
because there was, at the relevant time, an agitation by the contractual
employees within the University.
51. We also find importance in the University’s offer to conduct a fresh
written test only for the selected candidates, with a reduced qualifying
threshold of 35%, while assuring appointment to those who satisfied the said
benchmark. Such an offer indicates that the University was not seeking to
defeat the selection altogether but was attempting to verify whether the
selected candidates possessed the minimum competence for appointment
and had secured their place in the merit list without resorting to malpractice.
The refusal of the said offer by the concerned candidates, both before the
learned Single Judge and during the hearing of the present Appeal, though
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 41 of 54

not determinative of incompetence of the selected candidates by itself, is a
relevant circumstance which reinforces the University’s apprehension
regarding the fairness of the selection.
52. The examination process, particularly where it concerns recruitment
to public institutions, has to be conducted in a free, fair, transparent and
unimpeachable manner. Public examinations are mechanisms through which
public confidence in institutional selection, equal opportunity and merit-
based recruitment is maintained. Any conduct which has the effect of
compromising the sanctity of such an examination, whether by leakage of
material, unauthorised assistance, manipulation of systems, collusion,
tampering of data or any other unfair method, strikes at the root of the
selection process and is therefore required to be viewed with seriousness.
53. The Court, while exercising judicial review, cannot be oblivious to the
larger public interest involved in preserving the purity of such examinations.
It is in recognition of this public interest and the increasing complexity of
malpractices in public examinations that the legislature enacted the Public
Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (“ Unfair Means
Act ”), which defines unfair means in broad and inclusive terms as under:
“ 3. The unfair means relating to the conduct of a public
examination shall include any act or omission done or caused
to be done by any person or group of persons or institutions,
and include but not be restricted to, any of the following acts
for monetary or wrongful gain—
(i) leakage of question paper or answer key or part
thereof;
(ii) participating in collusion with others to effect leakage
of question paper or answer key;
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 42 of 54

(iii) accessing or taking possession of question paper or an
Optical Mark Recognition response sheet without authority;
(iv) providing solution to one or more questions by any
unauthorised person during a public examination;
(v) directly or indirectly assisting the candidate in any
manner unauthorisedly in the public examination;
(vi) tampering with answer sheets including Optical Mark
Recognition response sheets;
(vii) altering the assessment except to correct a bona fide
error without any authority;
(viii) wilful violation of norms or standards set up by the
Central Government for conduct of a public examination on
its own or through its agency;
(ix) tampering with any document necessary for short-
listing of candidates or finalising the merit or rank of a
candidate in a public examination;
(x) deliberate violation of security measures to facilitate
unfair means in conduct of a public examination;
(xi) tampering with the computer network or a computer
resource or a computer system;
(xii) manipulation in seating arrangements, allocation of
dates and shifts for the candidates to facilitate adopting unfair
means in examinations;
(xiii) threatening the life, liberty or wrongfully restraining
persons associated with the public examination authority or
the service provider or any authorised agency of the
Government; or obstructing the conduct of a public
examination;
(xiv) creation of fake website to cheat or for monetary gain;
and
(xv) conduct of fake examination, issuance of take admit
cards or offer letters to cheat or for monetary gain.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 43 of 54

54. In view of the above definition of unfair means, the material on record
in the present case cannot be viewed in a narrow or isolated manner. The
definition of unfair means is couched in broad and inclusive terms and is not
confined only to cases where a candidate is physically caught copying in the
examination hall or where there is direct ocular evidence of leakage of a
question paper. It specifically takes within its fold unauthorised assistance to
a candidate, manipulation of systems or processes, tampering with computer
resources, deliberate violation of security measures, and manipulation in
seating arrangements, allocation of dates or shifts to facilitate adoption of
unfair means.
55. Accordingly, where the material placed on record discloses an
unusual concentration of successful candidates from identified centres,
similarity in response patterns, commonality in incorrect answers and other
statistical improbabilities, such circumstances are required to be examined in
the light of the broad legislative understanding of unfair means. The
cumulative effect of these factors, if found credible on the material
available, may legitimately indicate compromise of the examination process
and cannot be rejected merely because the alleged malpractice does not fall
within a conventional or visible form of copying.
56. Further, the recent amendment to the Unfair Means Act by way of the
Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Act, 2026,
fortifies the legislative intent to deal with offences relating to unfair means
in public examinations with greater severity. The amendment enhances the
punishment for use of unfair means by individuals from imprisonment for a
term of three to five years with fine up to ₹10,00,000/- to imprisonment for a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 44 of 54

term of five to ten years with fine up to ₹50,00,000/-. It further enhances the
maximum fine imposable upon service providers from ₹1,00,00,000/- to
₹5,00,00,000/- and extends the period of debarment of such service
providers from four years to eight years. In addition, where persons in
charge of a service provider are found to be involved, the amendment
increases the minimum term of imprisonment to five years and enhances the
fine to ₹5,00,00,000/-. In cases involving organised crime, the minimum
term of imprisonment is enhanced to seven years and the minimum fine is
increased to ₹10,00,00,000/-.
57. The enhanced penal consequences reflect a legislative policy of
adopting a stricter approach towards examination-related malpractices and
of creating an effective deterrent against organised and sophisticated
activities capable of eroding public confidence in public examinations. The
amendment also recognises the need for institutional accountability and
time-bound mechanisms for investigation and trial, thereby acknowledging
that the use of unfair means may not be confined to individual candidates
alone but may also involve third-party service providers, organised
networks, or systemic compromise of examination infrastructure. This
legislative approach reinforces the principle that allegations of malpractice
in a computer-based public examination ought not to be discarded merely
for want of conventional evidence of copying, or solely on the basis of an
assertion by the examining agency that standard protocols were followed.
58. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and upon a cumulative
consideration of the material placed on record, we are of the considered
view that the examination conducted by the NTA, insofar as the selection to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 45 of 54

the Posts in question is concerned, cannot be held to have been conducted in
free, fair and transparent manner.
59. The NTA, having conducted the examination in question on behalf of
the University, stood in a position of trust and confidence and was required
to act with complete transparency towards the University. Its role did not
end with the mechanical declaration of results. Once the University raised a
serious concern regarding the integrity of the examination process, the NTA
was obliged to furnish to the University all relevant documents and data
pertaining to the examination process, commencing from the issuance of the
advertisement and allocation of centres till the conduct of the examination,
preservation of examination records, evaluation, preparation of merit list and
declaration of results. Such material would necessarily include centre-wise
data, response sheets, audit trails, seating and shift allocation details, records
relating to invigilation and surveillance, rough sheets where required to be
preserved, reports of observers, material concerning the Exam Delivery
Agency and any other record having a bearing on the fairness of the process.
60. The obligation of the NTA to maintain and disclose such records is of
significance in a computer-based public examination, where the indicators
of malpractice may not always be visible in the examination hall and may
emerge only from post-examination data analysis. In such examinations,
irregularities may be reflected through abnormal centre-wise outcomes,
clustering of successful candidates, similarity of responses, commonality of
incorrect answers, unusual attempt patterns or other digital and statistical
indicators. Therefore, where the recruiting institution has a bona fide doubt
regarding the sanctity of the examination, the examining agency cannot meet
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 46 of 54

such doubt merely by asserting that standard protocols were followed. It
must place complete and verifiable material before the recruiting institution
so that the latter can take an informed decision consistent with its duty to
ensure fair recruitment.
61. The appointments in question were to posts in the University and
would have long-term consequences for its departments, laboratories and
students. If material subsequently emerged which created a reasonable
apprehension that the merit list did not reflect genuine merit, the University
was not only entitled but duty-bound to pause the process and examine the
matter before permitting joining. To hold otherwise would amount to
compelling the employer to act upon a result which it reasonably considered
doubtful, merely because the process had been outsourced to a specialised
examining agency.
62. The contention of Respondent Nos. 1 to 76 that the nature of duties
attached to the post of Laboratory Attendant primarily involves cleaning
apparatus and maintaining equipment and, therefore, did not require the
candidates to possess a higher level of academic knowledge, cannot be
accepted. The issue is not whether the post required academic excellence
beyond the prescribed eligibility criteria, but whether the marks obtained by
the selected candidates in the written examination appeared to be consistent
with the material subsequently noticed by the University.
63. Once the recruitment process itself prescribed a written examination
containing questions relating to science, mathematics and other relevant
subjects, the performance of candidates in that examination necessarily
became a material indicator for preparation of the merit list. Candidates who
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 47 of 54

secured exceptionally high marks in such an examination could not, at the
same time, contend that basic academic knowledge was wholly irrelevant to
the post merely because the day-to-day duties may include cleaning,
handling or maintaining laboratory apparatus and equipment.
64. Further, the University did not seek to introduce a new eligibility
condition or to conduct an interview contrary to the advertisement. The
interaction with the candidates who reported for joining was relied upon
only as a circumstance which prompted further scrutiny of the examination
result. The concern of the University was heightened by the fact that several
candidates, despite comparatively modest academic performance in earlier
examinations, were shown to have secured marks exceeding 90% in a
competitive examination with negative marking. Such a circumstance,
standing alone, may not have justified an adverse conclusion; however,
when read with abnormal centre-wise concentration, similarity of answers
and commonality of incorrect responses, it became a relevant factor in
assessing whether the declared merit list reflected genuine merit. The
respondents’ submission, if accepted in absolute terms, would render the
written examination itself insignificant, which is impermissible once the
selection was admittedly based upon performance in that examination.
65. The ultimate effect of the Impugned Judgment, if sustained, would be
that the University would be compelled to proceed with appointments in
respect of non-teaching staff despite its serious and substantiated
apprehension that the selection process stood vitiated using unfair means.
Such a consequence would be contrary to the settled position that inclusion
in a select list or issuance of an offer of appointment does not confer an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 48 of 54

indefeasible right to appointment, particularly where the employer acts bona
fide based on relevant material to protect the integrity of the recruitment
process. In public employment, the rights of selected candidates must be
balanced against the larger public interest in ensuring that appointments are
made only through a fair, transparent and credible selection process.
66. The NTA’s contention that the University’s data-analysis
methodology was flawed cannot be accepted. The second Committee
examined centre-wise data, the number of selected candidates, the total
candidates appearing at the suspected centres, and the corresponding
selection percentages. It also analysed response sheets through colour-coded
visual inspection, similarity calculations and comparison of incorrect
answers. The groups identified through similarity calculations substantially
corresponded with those revealed through visual inspection, and a
discernible pattern of incorrect answers emerged from the suspected centres.
These findings furnished sufficient basis for the University to keep the
joining of selected candidates in abeyance. The centre-wise concentration of
successful candidates, the matching pattern of responses, the similarity in
incorrect answers, the unusually high scores obtained by several candidates
from the identified centres, and the other circumstances noticed by the
Committees constituted by the University together furnished a cogent and
reasonable basis for the University to conclude that the sanctity of the
examination process had been compromised.
67. The University had expressly reserved the right to modify, withdraw
or cancel any communication issued to a candidate in the event of any
inadvertent mistake or irregularity in the selection process being detected at
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 49 of 54

any stage, including after issuance of an appointment letter. In view of the
said stipulation, the University was justified in keeping the offers of
appointment in abeyance for the purpose of verifying the legality and
integrity of the examination process. The issuance of offers of appointment,
therefore, did not create any absolute or indefeasible right in favour of the
selected candidates. Having regard to its obligation to preserve the purity of
the recruitment process and to ensure that appointments are made only on
merit, the University was entitled to defer the joining of the candidates
pending such verification to safeguard the integrity of the selection process
in light of the material which had come to notice of the University.
68. In Shankarsan Dash ( supra ), the Supreme Court authoritatively held
that inclusion of a candidate’s name in a select list does not, by itself, confer
an indefeasible right to appointment, even where vacancies exist. Ordinarily,
a recruitment notification is an invitation to eligible candidates to participate
in the selection process, and selection or inclusion in the merit list does not
create a vested right to appointment. The State or a public employer is under
no legal obligation to fill up all or any of the advertised vacancies, provided
the decision not to make appointments is taken bona fide , for valid reasons
and in public interest. The said principle applies with full force to the
present case, where the University deferred joining not for any extraneous
purpose, but upon emergence of material raising serious doubts regarding
the integrity of the examination process.
69. The learned Single Judge, in our considered view, failed to accord due
weight in the Impugned Judgment to the principles enunciated by the
Division Bench of this Court in Manish Dabas ( supra ) and Varun
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 50 of 54

Bharadwaj ( supra ). In both these decisions, this Court recognised that, in
matters involving suspected resort to unfair means in objective or multiple-
choice examinations, direct evidence establishing the precise mode or
manner of malpractice may not invariably be available. It was held that
where expert examination or statistically supported analysis of the primary
material discloses an unusual, inexplicable and recurring pattern of matching
responses, particularly commonality in incorrect answers, such material may
constitute a legally sufficient basis for drawing a reasonable inference that
unfair means were adopted. Once the pattern disclosed by the primary
material is of such a nature that it cannot reasonably be explained as a matter
of chance, coincidence or ordinary examination behaviour, the conclusion
regarding adoption of unfair means can safely be arrived. The aforesaid
decisions having attained finality, the principles laid down therein were
required to be applied to the present case with due regard to the nature of the
examination, the material relied upon by the University and the limited
scope of judicial review in such matters.
70. In Arabinda Rabha ( supra ), the Supreme Court reiterated that a
selection process may be cancelled, or appropriate corrective action may be
taken, where larger public interest so warrants and where the material
available indicates serious irregularities affecting the fairness of the process.
It was further held that where the decision of the authority is founded upon
relevant considerations and bears a reasonable nexus with the object of
preserving the purity of public recruitment, the High Court would not be
justified in interfering merely because the consequence may operate harshly
upon some selected candidates. The proportionality of such a decision must
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 51 of 54

be assessed in the context of the nature and extent of the irregularities
detected. Applying the said principle, the University’s decision to keep the
joining in abeyance pending verification of the selection process cannot be
characterised as disproportionate or arbitrary, particularly when the material
disclosed serious doubts as to whether the declared merit list reflected
genuine merit.
71. The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate the law laid down
by the Supreme Court in Sachin Kumar ( supra ), wherein it has been held
therein that, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court
does not sit in appeal over the sufficiency of the material on the basis
whereof the competent authority has formed its opinion, unless the decision
is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness, perversity, unreasonableness or
disproportionality. The said decision recognises that where the nature of the
wrongdoing is such that it permeates the recruitment process and seriously
impinges upon the legitimacy of the examination, the employer or recruiting
authority is entitled to take appropriate corrective measures to preserve the
integrity of public employment. The principle which emerges is that the
Court is required to examine the decision-making process and the existence
of relevant material, and not to substitute its own assessment for that of the
competent authority merely because another view may be possible.
72. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the settled legal position
governing the scope and contours of judicial intervention in matters
concerning public recruitment examinations as discussed above and in the
Impugned Judgement, we respectfully disagree with the view taken by the
learned Single Judge that, in the absence of direct evidence of malpractice or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 52 of 54

a prior complaint, the security protocols stated to have been implemented by
the NTA were sufficient to displace the specific analytical findings recorded
by the University.
73. We are of the considered view that in matters concerning recruitment
through public examinations, the Court is not required to undertake an
appreciation of evidence as in a criminal trial, nor is it necessary to insist
upon proof of actual malpractice by direct evidence alone. Where the
employer, upon examination of relevant data and based on identifiable
parameters, reaches a bona fide conclusion that the integrity of the process
stands impaired, the scope of judicial review is confined to examining
whether such conclusion is arbitrary, perverse, mala fide or unsupported by
material. Upon consideration of the material placed on record by the
University, we find that the circumstances, taken cumulatively, indicate that
the examination process had been compromised. The convergence of
multiple factors, including abnormal centre-wise concentration, similarity in
response patterns, matching incorrect answers and unusually high scores
from identified centres, cannot be treated as a series of innocuous
coincidences in a single recruitment examination.
74. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the Impugned Judgment. The
Notifications dated 25.08.2023 and 29.08.2023, whereby the University had
put the joining of the selected candidates on hold pending examination of
the matter, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Consequently, the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge requiring the University to proceed with document verification,
appointment and joining of Respondent Nos. 1 to 76, together with
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 53 of 54

consequential benefits, are liable to be set aside. The prayers sought in the
Writ Petitions stand rejected.
75. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
The pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026
Sms/gsr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
11:18:44
LPA 440/2025 Page 54 of 54