An examination cannot be cancelled on suspicion absent cogent evidence of widespread malpractice.

The applicants participated in the recruitment examination conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 15/2022 for 355 posts of Librarian in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (“KVS”). The written examination was conducted by KVS/CBSE on 6 March 2023 through M/s Aptech Ltd.

KVS issued Result/Notice No. F.11053/1/2022/KVS(HQ)/RPS dated 10 May 2023, pursuant to which candidates were shortlisted for interview. The applicants were not shortlisted, having failed to secure the prescribed cut-off of approximately 152.6693 marks out of 180.

The applicants challenged the entire recruitment process, alleging that the unusually high cut-off, the geographical concentration of successful candidates—particularly from Haryana and Delhi/NCR—the selection of examination centres by certain candidates, and alleged past irregularities involving M/s Aptech Ltd. indicated malpractice and manipulation in the examination.

They sought quashing of the result notice, cancellation of the examination, a fresh recruitment examination, and an investigation by an external agency such as the CBI or Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing.

The respondents contended that the applicants had produced no credible evidence of paper leakage, impersonation, manipulation, unfair assistance, or any other malpractice in the examination in question. They submitted that candidates were permitted to select examination cities of their choice and that the cut-off depended on the number of vacancies and the performance of candidates in that particular examination.

1. Whether the circumstances relied upon by the applicants—including the high cut-off, geographical concentration of shortlisted candidates, choice of examination centres, and alleged past irregularities involving the examination agency—were sufficient to establish that the examination conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 15/2022 was vitiated by large-scale malpractice or irregularity?

2. Whether the result notice dated 10 May 2023 and the entire recruitment process should be quashed, with directions for an external investigation and re-conduct of the examination?

The Tribunal applied the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity in public recruitment under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, while recognising that the purity and integrity of a selection examination must be protected.

It considered the principles stated in Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 128, concerning fair and non-arbitrary selection; Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2017) 13 SCC 621, concerning preservation of examination purity and cancellation where large-scale malpractice is supported by reliable material; Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha & Ors., (1970) 1 SCC 648, recognising that an examination may be cancelled as a whole where mass copying or widespread unfair means are established; Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey, (1994) 5 SCC 663; and Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 614, concerning corrective measures, including re-examination, where large-scale irregularities are demonstrated.

The governing principle was that suspicion or statistical anomalies alone cannot invalidate an examination; cancellation or re-conduct requires cogent material showing actual or widespread malpractice in the examination concerned.

The Tribunal held that the higher cut-off, by itself, did not establish malpractice because cut-offs vary according to the number of vacancies, the difficulty of the examination, and candidates’ performance in the particular recruitment.

Similarly, the geographical concentration of shortlisted candidates and their selection of distant examination centres could not, without more, demonstrate manipulation, particularly since candidates were permitted to choose examination cities freely.

The alleged past irregularities involving M/s Aptech Ltd. in other examinations were not connected by independent evidence to the present examination and therefore could not establish that the present recruitment was compromised.

The applicants produced no specific material showing paper leakage, manipulation of the examination system, impersonation, unfair assistance, or other concrete malpractice in the examination under challenge.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicants’ case was substantially based on post-result comparisons of raw and normalized scores, statistical patterns, examination-centre choices, and alleged prior conduct of the agency. These circumstances, even cumulatively, fell short of the cogent evidentiary threshold required to cancel an examination and prejudice candidates who may have succeeded without wrongdoing.

The precedents relied upon by the applicants applied where actual or large-scale irregularity was supported by material; they did not authorise cancellation merely on the basis of suspicion.

Accordingly, the prayer to quash the Result/Notice dated 10 May 2023, cancel the recruitment process, direct an external investigation, and order a fresh examination was rejected.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.