When Can Entire Selection Process Be Set Aside For Irregularities? Supreme Court Lays Down 4 Key Principles

The Supreme Court today (April 3), while upholding the quashing of nearly 25000 teaching and non-teaching staff appointments made by the West Bengal School Selection Commission (SSC) in 2016, laid down key principles to be considered by the Court when dealing with challenges to appointments in government employment. 

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed 4 main principles to follow when tasked with the issue of whether the entire selection procedure should be struck down when riddled with irregularities. 

(1) Entire Exam Result Be Cancelled If In-depth Inquiry Signals Fraud In Process

The Court held that : 

(1) When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities, such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity.

In arriving at the said principle, it mainly relied upon the decision of the Top Court in Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB). In Sachin Kumar court was considering the issue of when the examination process is vitiated by irregularities requires an in-depth fact-finding inquiry. 

The bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice MR Shah held that it must be seen whether the irregularities were systemic enough to undermine the sanctity of the process. In some cases, the irregularities may border on or even constitute fraud, which severely damages the credibility and legitimacy of the process. In such cases, the only option is to cancel the result entirely. 

It was further held that care must be taken to ensure that no innocent suffers unfairly when cancelling the entire result. Thus it should be seen it there is a possibility to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. If the segregation is possible, the selection process can proceed with the untainted candidates as this will be in line wth the equality principle under Article 16(1) and 14. 

The present also referred to the decision in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others where it was held that when the conduct of all examinees, or at least the vast majority, at a particular examination centre reveals the use of unfair means, it may not be necessary for the board to give individual opportunities of hearing to the candidates if the entire examination is being cancelled. This is not a case where anyone is charged with unfair means and would need to defend themselves. An examination vitiated by widespread unfair means falls into a separate category, so giving notice in individual cases is not required. 

On the other hand, the Court also referred to the decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others. Here the Court elucidated three principles which must be adhered to when cancelling appointments. "First, there must be satisfaction regarding the sufficiency of the material collected so as to enable the State to conclude that the selection process was tainted. Second, to determine whether the illegalities committed go to the root of the matter and vitiate the entire selection process, such satisfaction should be based on a reasoned and thorough investigation conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

Third, there must be sufficient material to support the conclusion that the majority of the appointments were part of the fraudulent purpose or that the system itself was corrupt. This three-pronged test, as outlined by Sinha J., is appropriate and should be adhered to."  

However, the bench here clarified that "opinion expressed by Dalveer Bhandari J. in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) regarding the strict compliance with the principles of natural justice is not in line with the ratio of the earlier three Judge Bench decision in Bihar School Examination Board (supra)." 

(2) The Evidence Used To Cancel En Masse Selection May Not Necessarily Prove Malpractice Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The court held : 

"The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable." 

(3) If Deep Manipulation In Process Is Proven, Purity Of The Process Has To Be Given Precedence Over Inconvenience To Untainted Candidates

"Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process."

(4) If Its Is Factually Established That Entire Process Is Vitiated, Individual Hearings Not Necessary

"Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale." 

To arrive at the above three principles, the bench placed reliance on the decision of State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A. Kalaimani (2021) 16 SCC 217. This case involved allegations of large-scale malpractices involving tampering with OMR sheets. After re-evaluation and further scrutiny, the Teachers Recruitment Board found that 196 candidates had been the beneficiaries of fraudulent alteration of marks. 

Bench noted that the Court here held that "despite the inconvenience caused to the untainted candidates, a serious doubt regarding the magnitude of manipulation in the examination has to be given due weightage. It was held that the finding of the Board that there were chances of more people being involved in the manipulation of marks was a bona fide decision being taken by the Board to instil confidence in the public regarding the integrity of the selection process." 

The bench also referred to the recent decision in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others. Here, the Supreme Court refused to cancel the NEET-UG 2024 exam on the grounds of paper leak and malpractices. The Court stated that there was no material to indicate that the leak was systemic, affecting the sanctity of the entire exam.

The Court also stated that ordering a re-examination will lead to serious consequences affecting over 23 lakh students and will lead to disruption of the academic schedule, causing a cascading effect in the coming years.

The bench emphasised the finding of the Court, where it observed that " The court must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record, including investigative reports, supports this conclusion. There must be at least some evidence for the court to reach such a conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need not be unduly strict. Specifically, the material on record need not point to a single, definitive conclusion that malpractice occurred at a systemic level. Nevertheless, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise, as reflected in the material before the court."  

The bench in the present case of WB SSC appointments approved the finding of the High Court that the selection process was vitiated by fraud and was tainted beyond repair. The Court upheld the High Court's judgment cancelling the appointments en bloc.

Case Details : THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL vs. BAISHAKHI BHATTACHARYYA (CHATTERJEE) SLP(C) No. 009586 - / 2024 and connected matters

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 385

Click here to read the judgment