In India, Far More Demand For Government Jobs Than Available Posts; Absolute Scruplousness Necessary In Selection Process: Supreme Court

"In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available," observed the Supreme Court recently while setting aside the bail granted to the accused in case over the use of a "dummy candidate" in a Civil Engineer Competitive Examination.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanudding Amanullah allowed the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the High Court's order for grant of bail to accused Indraj Singh and Salman Khan.

As per the prosecution, Khan has appeared as a 'dummy' candidate for Singh in the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022.

FIR was registered for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022. During the investigation, a cheque for an amount of Rs 10 lakhs was allegedly recovered from Khan.

While setting aside the High Court's bail, the Supreme Court observed :

“In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of Government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process - with prescribed examination and/or interview process, has only to be filled in accordance thereof. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions.”  

The Court further observed that "there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job."

Hence, the Court opined that the High Court erred in granting bail merely on the ground of lack of criminal antecedents. Reference was made to the recent pronouncements in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 278, Ajwar v. Waseem 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392, Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar(2020) etc which discussed the parameters for grant of bail in serious offences.

While stating that the accused persons are entitled to the presumption of innocence, the Court said that it was cancelling the bail having regard to the overall impact on the society.

"We are conscious of the fact that bail once granted is not to be set aside ordinarily, and we wholeheartedly endorse this view. The view taken hereinabove, however, has been taken keeping in view the overall impact of the alleged acts of the respondent-accused and its effect on society."

At the same time, the Court clarified that its observations are only confined to the question of bail and will have no impact on the trial.

Case :  State of Rajasthan vs Indraj Singh

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 300

Click here to read the order