Wholesale cancellation of selection is void if tainted candidates can be segregated from untainted candidates.

The applicant, a Postman in the Haryana Circle, appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) 2025 for promotion to Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.

Following a notification on 09.06.2025, Paper-I was conducted on 17.08.2025.

After the result was declared on 04.09.2025, where 125 candidates (including the applicant at rank 5) were shortlisted for the Data Entry Skill Test (DEST), the department received complaints of paper leakage and corruption.

A vigilance inquiry report dated 03.11.2025 confirmed a leak involving official Shri Prabhat Goyal and identified 23 specific candidates who benefitted by marking identical wrong answers based on leaked material.

Consequently, the respondents issued a memorandum on 11.11.2025 cancelling the entire examination process and issued a fresh notification on 01.12.2025.

The applicant challenged this wholesale cancellation as arbitrary.

1. Whether the wholesale cancellation of the entire LDCE-2025 examination was legally sustainable when the "tainted" beneficiaries were allegedly identifiable and segregable.

2. Whether the impugned cancellation order dated 11.11.2025 violated the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of proportionality.

The Tribunal applied the principle of segregation of "tainted" from "untainted" candidates as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2006) and Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. (2003), which holds that an entire selection process should not be scrapped if the beneficiaries of malpractice can be identified.

It further relied on Monu Tomar v. Union of India (2016), which mandates that action be confined only to suspected candidates after due process, ensuring meritorious candidates are not prejudiced.

Additionally, the court referenced East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao (2010) regarding the requirement for the competent authority to act reasonably and provide valid reasons for cancellation rather than acting on vague suspicions.

The Tribunal observed that while the respondents' vigilance inquiry proved a paper leak occurred, the respondents' own pleadings admitted that the beneficiaries (23 candidates) were specifically identified through scientific OMR analysis and audio evidence.

Relying on the Monu Tomar and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon precedents, the Tribunal reasoned that since the "tainted" candidates were segregable, the "drastic step" of cancelling the entire examination for all 125 successful candidates was disproportionate and arbitrary.

The Tribunal found the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 to be "non-speaking" as it cited "administrative grounds" without disclosing the necessity of wholesale cancellation despite the ability to segregate.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that initiating a completely fresh examination (held on 11.01.2026) while a valid merit list exists (minus the tainted names) would lead to administrative inconsistency.

The respondents were directed to: (a) segregate and exclude the candidates specifically identified as beneficiaries in the vigilance report; (b) restore the result dated 04.09.2025 for the remaining "untainted" candidates; and (c) proceed with the DEST and final selection based on the original merit within eight weeks.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the respondents' applications (MA 827/2026 & 2262/2026) to declare the results of the fresh re-examination conducted on 11.01.2026.