Examination results cannot be withheld solely on suspicion absent concrete evidence of misconduct.

The respondent appeared in the Assistant Grade Examination, 2014, conducted by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board for recruitment to the post of Assistant in the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (“ICAR”), and was the topper in the selection list.

Following an alleged complaint concerning his conduct, three committees examined the examination process and the respondent’s answer sheets. ICAR withheld only the respondent’s result while declaring the results of the other candidates.

The first committee expressed suspicion and a “high probability” that the respondent may have had access to the question paper, but made no positive finding of misconduct; the second and third committees found no conclusive or concrete material establishing malpractice and did not specifically implicate the respondent.

The respondent challenged the withholding of his result before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 3120/2017. The Tribunal directed ICAR to appoint him retrospectively from the date of appointment of the other selected candidates, with consequential benefits but without back wages, while reserving liberty to ICAR to take action under the applicable rules if warranted.

ICAR challenged that order before the Delhi High Court.

Whether ICAR was justified in withholding the respondent’s examination result solely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture and alleged probabilities, without positive or conclusive material establishing misconduct.

Whether the respondent could be singled out for withholding of his result when the results of all other candidates were declared and the committees found no concrete, respondent-specific material against him.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction, could rely upon the respondent’s answers to questions put to him during courtroom proceedings to assess the validity of the selection.

The Court applied the principle that administrative or selection authorities cannot withhold a candidate’s result or deny consequential appointment merely on the basis of suspicion, conjecture or probability in the absence of positive and cogent material establishing misconduct.

It further applied the principle that similarly situated candidates must not be subjected to discriminatory or unexplained differential treatment, particularly where no respondent-specific evidence justifies singling out one candidate.

The Court relied on the Tribunal’s application of Smt. Kiran Juneja v. Union of India & Ors., dated 20 December 2007, concerning appointment after completion of the selection process with consequential benefits, while preserving the employer’s liberty to take disciplinary action if subsequently supported by material.

It also emphasised that certiorari jurisdiction is supervisory and does not permit the Court to conduct an inquisitorial reassessment of a candidate by orally testing him in court.

The Court examined the reports of all three committees and found that the first committee merely inferred, from the respondent’s prior employment in ASRB, his high marks and the nature of his answers, that he might have accessed the question paper.

Its report expressly relied on “probability,” “suspicion” and circumstantial inference, and recommended that the respondent be examined by subject experts; that examination was apparently never conducted.

The second committee found that malpractice could not be conclusively established and did not specifically refer to the respondent.

The third committee compared successful and unsuccessful candidates and found only a minimal difference in the percentage of candidates giving direct answers, concluding that there was no concrete or relevant material indicating widespread infirmity.

Since no person alleged to have leaked the question paper was identified and no positive material was produced against the respondent, withholding his result alone was unjustified.

The Court also declined to rely on answers given by the respondent when questioned by a predecessor Bench, holding that such courtroom questioning could not form the basis for deciding the writ petition within certiorari jurisdiction.

It upheld the Tribunal’s direction to appoint the respondent retrospectively from the date of appointment of the other selected candidates, with consequential benefits but without back wages, while preserving ICAR’s liberty to proceed against him if positive material emerged.

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs; the interim order stood vacated, and ICAR was directed to comply with the Tribunal’s order within eight weeks.