Appointment relief is premature while examination-malpractice proceedings remain pending.

The applicant participated in the SSC recruitment process for Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police Examination–2020, scored 92.16339 marks in the Computer-Based Examination, and qualified the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test.

When the final result was declared on 15 December 2021, his result was withheld with those of 624 other candidates for further scrutiny concerning suspected use of unfair means.

The SSC subsequently cleared 135 candidates, but the applicant’s result remained withheld.

He sought quashing of the withholding and a direction to declare his result and appoint him.

The respondents submitted that the matter was covered by the Tribunal’s decision in Manjeet & Ors. v. SSC & Ors., O.A. No. 635/2022 and batch.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to have his withheld result declared and to receive appointment while criminal proceedings concerning suspected examination malpractice remained pending.

2. Whether the applicant’s case was materially distinguishable from the Tribunal’s decision in Manjeet & Ors., warranting a different outcome.

Under Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Civil Appeal Nos. 639–640 of 2021, a selection process may be cancelled where systemic irregularities undermine its integrity; where tainted candidates can be identified and separated, innocent candidates should not be penalised for others’ misconduct.

Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 743, requires a holistic assessment of the evidence and the possibility of segregating tainted from untainted candidates; systemic malpractice must be supported by material, assessed on a probability standard.

The Tribunal also applied the principle in Manjeet & Ors. v. SSC & Ors., O.A. No. 635/2022 and batch, that relief concerning withheld results may be premature while the related criminal proceedings are pending, without foreclosing later case-specific relief.

Participation in a selection process does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, particularly to a post in a disciplined force, where suitability and integrity are relevant.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s case as indistinguishable from Manjeet.

In that matter, the scrutiny process had cleared 135 candidates and referred the remaining 490 for investigation; the investigation had led to charge-sheets and cognizance by the criminal court.

The Tribunal had concluded that the requested relief was premature while those proceedings remained pending.

As the present application concerned the same examination and the same withholding of results, the Tribunal found no basis to depart from that decision.

It preserved the applicant’s liberty to raise his grievance in accordance with law on a case-specific basis if and when appropriate.

Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of; there was no order as to costs.