G.S.Singhvi,Chandramauli Kr.Prasad - (1.) THIS petition is directed against order, dated 8th March, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby three writ petitions filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal were allowed and cancellation of the examination held for recruitment of Assistant Sub -Inspectors of Police was upheld.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the result of the examination held by the Chandigarh Administration for recruitment of Assistant Sub -Inspectors of Police was cancelled on the ground that question paper of the written test held on 23rd December, 2007 had been leaked by some individuals, who had entered into criminal conspiracy with employees of Chandigarh police. The investigation made by the police in the FIR registered under Sections 420, 120B read with Section 34 IPC revealed that the accused had collected amount running into lacs of rupees for leaking the question paper. The Tribunal disposed of the original applications filed by the Petitioners and others with a direction that the selection shall be reviewed by the Home Secretary with a view to find out whether it was possible to segregate tainted and untainted candidates. This direction appears to have been given by the Tribunal in the light of the judgments of this Court in Ashok Lanka v. Rishi DikshiP (2006) 9 SCC 90 and Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab2 (2006) 11 SCC 356. The Division Bench of the High Court distinguished both the Judgments and held that in a case of this nature, it was not possible to segregate tainted and clean candidates. This is evident from Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the impugned order, which are extracted below: 14. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of malpractice involved, we are of the view that the Tribunal should have avoided passing of any such direction because in an objective multiple choice question papers it is not possible to find any distinguishing mark on the answer sheet. A random look on the allegations would show that the accused like Joginder Dahiya and Sanjay Rana in connivance with one Shamsher Singh, have leaked the question paper and they have taken 1 Ed.: : AIR 2006 SC 2382: 2006 (4) SCALE 519: [2006] Supp (1) SCR 142 2 Ed.: : AIR 2006 SC 2571: [2007 (1) JCR 251 (SC)]: JT 2006 (5) SC 352: 2004 (5) "SCALE 273: [2006J Supp (1) SCR 772 a large number of candidates in a coach at Karnal. It is not a case where a failed candidate or less meritorious candidate has influenced the result by securing the favours of the Selection Committee like Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon's case (supra) and on his turn the Chairman influenced the examiner to decrease or increase the marks by cutting. In the present case, there is wholesome malpractice, which has made if impossible to identify the candidates who have leaked the paper and the others who did not have access. There is no intelligible mark on any of the answer sheet which might point a finger to a tainted candidate and help in segregation from the untainted candidate. Even the accused before the criminal Court are those who have sold the solved paper for huge amount and none of the candidates who might have purchased is named in the FIR. Therefore, the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Applicant -Respondents would be of no assistance to them. 15. In Para 42 of the judgment in Ashok Lenka's case (supra), the principles concerning en masse cancellation have been discussed in detail. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is permissible to cancel the entire selection process when it is found that the same is tainted to such an extent that it may not be possible to separate the innocent from the tainted ones. The example of mass cheating by the student in a Board Examination has been quoted. In the cases where selection process is carried out by more than one committee then the same principle may not be applicable because the sanctity of the examination or the selection process would not be vitiated at every committee. There may be a possibility of segregating the tainted from untainted. Therefore, it is patent that in the present case, it is not possible to find out as to how many candidates have access to the leaked question paper and how many of them did not have the leaked material. It has come on record that a number of candidates were carried in a coach at Karnal so as to be dropped the examination centre. Therefore, the principles annunciated in Ashok Lenka's case (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case. Likewise, the facts in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon's case (supra) are also entirely different and therefore, no principle of that judgment would apply to the facts of the present case. In Inderpreet Singh Kahlon's case (supra), the majority of the officers named in the FIR belonged to 2001 batch. The Respondent -State of Punjab not only cancelled the entire selection but on that basis also cancelled the process for the year 1998, which was not even the subject matter nor it had any recommendation against it. It was in that situation that certain directions were given. However, in the present case, the sanctity of the whole examination, which was taken in one go, has been vitiated on account of serious segregation of leakage of question paper.
(3.) WE are in complete agreement with the High Court that leakage of the question paper had the effect of vitiating the entire selection and it was impossible to segregate those who had indulged in malpractices and those who did not. With the above observation, the special leave petition is dismissed.;