Indian Council For Agricultural Research And Anr. vs Mr. Krishan Kumar Pasi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010208982019
+ W.P.(C) 4597/2019, CM APPL. 20431/2019 CM APPL.
52497/2019 CM APPL. 32147/2021
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Aditeya Bali, Adv.
versus
MR. KRISHAN KUMAR PASI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Sharma and Mr.
Gurumukh Singh, Adv. for R-1
Mr. Niraj Kumar, Sr. Central Govt. Counsel
with Mr. Chaitanya Kumar, Advs. for R-
2/Delhi Police
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 31.08.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition assails order dated 6 December 2018 passed
1
by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 3120/2017, instituted
before the Tribunal by the respondent against the Indian Council of
2
Agricultural Research and Agricultural Scientists Recruitment
3
Board .
1
“the Tribunal” hereinafter
2
“ICAR” hereinafter
3
“ASRB” hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 1 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
2. The respondent appeared in the Assistant Grade Examination of
2014 for recruitment for the post of Assistant in the ICAR. The
examination was held by the ASRB. The respondent was the topper in
the selection list.
3. Apparently on the ground that there was some complaint
against the respondent, three committees successively inquired into
his conduct during the examination. Purportedly following the reports
of these three committees, the ICAR withheld the result of the
respondent and declared the result of all other candidates who had
undertaken the examination.
4. Piqued at this, the respondent approached the Tribunal by way
of an OA 3120/2017. Inter alia, the respondent submitted that,, apart
from the fact that his result was held up merely on the basis of
suspicion and probability, there was no reason to single him out and
withhold his result even while declaring the results of all other
candidates.
5. The Tribunal has, by judgment dated 6 December 2018
disposed of the OA in the following terms:
“6. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances and in
view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt.
4
Kiran Juneja and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others dated
20.12.2007, we are of the opinion that as the applicant is selected
after going through the entire selection process, we direct the
respondents to appoint the applicant with retrospective effect from
the date of appointment of other selected candidates with all
consequential benefits without back wages. However, the
4
MANU/DE/8977/2007
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 2 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
respondents are at liberty to take action against the applicant as per
relevant rules.”
6. The ICAR has approached this Court by means of present writ
petition, aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal.
7. We have heard Mr. Aditeya Bali, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Arun Sharma, learned Counsel for Respondent
1/Mr. Krishan Kumar Pasi.
8. Mr. Bali has submitted that the Tribunal in passing the
impugned order did not holistically take into account the findings of
the three committees which had examined the allegations against the
respondent. He has, therefore, taken us through the said reports.
9. On perusing the said reports, we find ourselves to be in
agreement with the Tribunal that there was no material against the
respondent on the basis of which his result could have been withheld.
Of the three committees, the first committee has embarked on an
exercise of probability and suspicion and has stopped short of
returning any positive finding of any kind of misdemeanour in the
examination on the respondent’s part. The remaining two committees
have not even adverted to the respondent or his conduct in the
examination.
10. The first Committee, in its report dated 28 December 2016,
observed and opined, qua the respondent, thus:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 3 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
“i. Shri Krishan Kumar Passi was working in ASRB since
2010. In all probabilities , Shri. K.K. Passi must have developed
acquaintances in ASRB during the long period of 4 years at ASRB,
and was aware of functioning of ASRB system. He had appeared in
the prelim examination and scored 100% percentile. When the
result of Prelim was declared, ASRB should have got alerted and
would have found out the circumstances how he has scored 100%
percentile and would have taken cognizance whether he had some
information of question paper , but ASRB failed to do so and he
was continued to work in ASRB. Consequently, by virtue of his
familiarity and loop holes found in the system , and subsequently
topped too in the written examination. It is predominant from
circumstantial evidences as seen from his answers in the main
examination.
ii. His answer sheet of main examination was perused
(Annexure-XII) and the committee found, that he had given some
data related to production from 19.50 to 2013-14 and data related
to production of commodities from 2009 to 2013-14, which shows
that he has reproduced data in almost every answer which gives
doubt that he might have known questions before the exam . The
kind of data provided by Mr. Passi in the answer sheets while
answering Question Number 13(a) & 13(c), 13(d) & 13(b) makes
one suspicious that he was somehow knowing about these
questions in advance . It is further vindicated by the fact that Shri
Passi has written a large number of data in each of these answers
and used many uncommon technical terms in the answers which
gives impression that he was having visibility to the question paper
before the examination .
iii. As Committee is not subject matter Expert to evaluate the
status of knowledge possessed by Shri Passi, it would be
appropriate that he may be examined by the subject matter experts
as was done in Bihar intermediate exam, which can ascertain how
Shri Passi had topped the main examination. It is quite evident that
he was working in ASRB since 2010 and was well acquainted with
ASRB functions. ASRB system was not as much security proof as
it would have been to avoid any kind of leakage of question paper
etc. and probability he was having access to question papers in the
whole process as movement of contractual staff was not restricted
to confidential/ sensitive areas.
Conclusion: Evidential circumstances corroborate that there is a
high probability of accessibility to the question papers by Shri.
K.K. Passi which resulted in to high scoring in the main
examination.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 4 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
11. The final recommendations of the first Committee, which did
not even advert to the respondent, read thus:
“a. The work related to examination should not be given to
contractual staff,
b. The ASRB should be given adequate regular staff with high
integrity for examination work.
c. There should be a Joint Secretary rank of officer as
controller of examination.
d. Video recording should be made mandatory for the
complete process of the examination and the record should
available till one year after the declaration of the final result.
e. Entry to ASRB complex should be strictly as per
permission and controlled. f. Protocol should be maintained for
examination process and should strictly be adhered to.
g. ASRB should have a time tested its own software for online
examinations.
h. ASRB should be equipped with the officers other than the
ICAR origin and should have mixed officials from other
department on deputation basis. ”
12. Thus, it is clear that there was no positive finding against the
respondent by the first committee. All that was said was there was a
probability of accessibility to the question papers by the respondent.
The emphasized words in the report of the Committee, as extracted in
para 10 supra , justify the Tribunal’s view that the Committee was
merely embarking on an exercise of surmise and conjecture, without
any prima facie , much less decisive, material against the respondent.
13. The first Committee, in its report, recommended that the
respondent be examined by subject experts. It does not appear that
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 5 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
this was ever done and, solely based on the conjectural findings of the
committee, the respondent’s result was withheld.
14. Given the fact that the Tribunal had granted liberty to the
petitioner to carry out further inquiry into the matter, we queried of
Mr. Bali, learned Counsel for the petitioners, as to whether any
individual, who leaked the paper to the respondent, had been
identified at any point of time. He candidly acknowledges that it has
not been possible to bring home any guilt to any such individual,
though, according to him, security lapses in the organisation had been
noted by the first Committee.
15. The findings in the report of the Second Committee, dated 13
April 2017, read thus:
“4. Finding
After examining the answer sheets of selected candidates the
Committee arrived at the following conclusion:-
(i) Candidates had written the answers differently in
respect of Essay, English comprehensive & others, and
therefore no common pattern of answering could be
established ;
(ii) Descriptive Language by candidates was found in
varying pattern, and appears to be their own.
(iii) It is also found that while answering the
comprehensive question candidates had not given much
data in their answers.
(iv) It is noticed that portion of question paper consist of
approximately 60 marks (Part IV & Part III, Question No.
14) and going through the answer sheet of 59 candidates it
is found they had written direct answers on answer sheets
without any calculations either in the answer sheet or in the
rough work in the answer sheet but yet they were given full
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 6 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
marks. This gives a suspicion that candidates might had
some prior information of the question paper . However due
to the rough work page in the Question paper also (which
had been taken away by the candidates after the exam), it
cannot be proved that the candidates did not made any
rough calculations. For this reason an act of malafide
cannot be conclusively be established in the said exam .”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Thus, in so far as the second Committee is concerned, apart
from the fact that there was a clear acknowledgment in para 4 of its
findings that no conclusive evidence of any kind of misdemeanour or
mala fides could be established, there is nothing in the report which
particularly refers to the respondent.
17. The Third Committee, in its report dated 5 May 2017, found
thus:
“Finding
The Committee gone through all the Answer sheets of unsuccessful
candidates of all category (1000-309 = 691) and observed the
following :
Candidates had written the answers differently in respect of Essay,
English Comprehensive and others, and therefore, no common
pattern of answering could be established.
(ii). Descriptive language by candidates was found in varying
pattern, and appears to be their own.
(iii). It is also found that while answering the comprehensive
question candidates had not given much data in their answers.
(iv) Out of 691 unsuccessful candidates, 121 candidates did not
solve the mathematical part of the question paper involving
different logical steps to arrive an answer. On the other hand, they
had straightway written the answers to the question. (Annexure-II)
The detailed bifurcation of 1000 candidates is given in the tabular
statement
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 7 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
Sr.
No.
Type Number of
Candidates
Given
direct
Answer
Percentage
(A) (B) (C)=B*100/A
1. Successful 309 59 19.09%
2. Unsuccessful 691 121 17.51%
Total 1000 180 18%
The variation in percentage of successful and unsuccessful
candidates who have directly answered the questions without
adopting the steps is minimum and its figures out 1.6%.
4.2 Committee in its previous finding did not conclusively
stated that as to whether an act of malafide was not proved on
account of the following counts: -
a) 59 candidates had written the answer directly and
on the top of it, no rough calculation has been found in the
answer sheet which attributes the suspicion on the
candidates. Subsequently, it was found by of committee
that a sheet marked a rough paper was attached with the
question paper. Because of this fact, it would be rather
more difficult for the committee to determine as to whether
the answer solved by the candidates was pre-empt or
otherwise.
b) Had the instructions detailed in the answer sheet
bas been followed by the candidates, it would be easier for
the committee to arrive at its logical conclusion.
c) Had no rough paper been provided in question
paper, committee would have conclusively proved malafide
when no rough calculation found on answer sheet.
d) Further, after examination of all the answer sheets,
the committee didn't come across any new facts for arriving
at a conclusion except infirmities as stated above were
found both in successful and unsuccessful candidates.
e) If evaluation on answer sheet for mathematical
paper would have been done on step by step calculation,
then the situation could not have arrived.
4.4 Committee could not find any concrete and relevant
material indicating wide spread infirmities from, visual inspection
of answer sheet except the fad that rough calculation of
mathematical portion by successful candidates and unsuccessful
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 8 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
candidates was not found on answer sheet and it is understood that
they might have done the calculation on the paper provided along
with question paper.”
18. Clearly, the second and third Committees constituted by the
ICAR did not even particularly advert to the respondent, and findings,
in fact, exonerate the candidates rather than otherwise. The findings,
in so far as they were critical, remained in the realm of conjecture,
surmise and probability.
19. In these circumstances, what is more unsettling, for us, is the
fact that, of all the candidates who underwent the examination, the
only person whose result was withheld was the respondent. We do
not deem it necessary to hazard a guess for the real reason behind this.
Suffice it, however, to state that there is no sufficient justification to
single out the respondent for exclusive treatment by withholding his
result.
20. Mr. Bali also drew our attention to an order dated 2 December
2021 which was passed by the predecessor bench of this Court in the
present proceedings. This Court, on the said date, apparently posed a
few questions to the respondent, including questions such as the
identity of the President of the United States, the Finance Minister of
India and the like, and was not satisfied with the response given by the
respondent.
21. With great respect to the learned predecessor Bench, we are of
the opinion that the limits of our certiorari jurisdiction do not allow us
to carry out any such inquisitorial exercise. In the lay litigant, the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 9 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
Court, and its atmosphere suffused with legalese, often instils a sense
of apprehension. There is every possibility that, on being grilled by a
Court, a litigant might lose his cool and not be able to answer simple
questions which, in a more placid setting, he might readily have been
able to answer. While we have no doubt about the fact that the
predecessor bench was bona fide seeking to satisfy itself about the
respondent, we are of the opinion that we cannot decide this writ
petition on the basis of the answers given by the respondent when
grilled by the Court.
22. The respondent admittedly was a topper in the examination.
We find no justifiable basis whatsoever for the withholding of his
result.
23. Besides, the relief given by the Tribunal is, to say the least,
innocuous. The Tribunal has not granted a clean chit to the
respondent. It has merely noted that it was not fair or legal to
withhold his result merely on suspicion and has, therefore, directed
declaration of his result with consequential relief, sans back wages,
reserving liberty with the petitioner to proceed to inquire into the
matter and take action if any positive material emerged. Eight years
have elapsed since then and, apparently, till date, no such material is
forthcoming.
24. In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the Tribunal, which is upheld in its entirety.
25. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed, with no orders as to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 10 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
costs.
26. The interim order passed in these proceedings would stand
vacated.
27. We direct compliance with the order of the Tribunal within
eight weeks from today.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/ dsn
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4597/2019 Page 11 of 11
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07