- (1.) THE judgment and order dated 13th May, 2003 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') in Original Application Nos. 900 of 2002, 908 of 2002 and 918 of 2002 has led to the filing of these petitions by not only the applicants before the Tribunal who had appeared at the examination conducted by the Railway Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'board') for selection to the post of Supervisor but also by the Union of India.
(2.) THE order passed by the Board cancelling the candidature of 37 candidates and debarring them from appearing at future examination as they had adopted unfair means at the examination was challenged before the Tribunal in the aforesaid three Original Applications. THE Tribunal by means of the judgment and order dated 13th May, 2003 partly allowed the Original Applications by not only quashing the aforesaid order but further directing the Board to hold the examination afresh for all the candidates who had appeared at the earlier examination. Out of these five petitions, two petitions have been filed by the candidates whose result had been cancelled by the Board and a relief has been claimed that not only the judgment of the Tribunal should be set aside but the decision taken by the Board should also be set aside. THE Union of India has also filed these three petitions contending that the judgment of the Tribunal should be set aside and the order of the Board should be maintained. The Board had issued an advertisement in March 1997 for filling up 18 categories of posts but the dispute relates to the post of Supervisor. The examination was initially conducted by the Board on 17th August, 1997 but it was cancelled in view of the suspected irregularities at the examination. It was again held on 26th March, 2000. The said examination was an objective type examination consisting of 120 question with each question having four responses A, B, C and D one of which was correct and the candidate was required to darken the answer bubbles appearing against one of these responses. The question booklet and the answer-sheet were separately given to the candidates. The answer-sheet was designed to be read by a computer for evaluation and the candidate was required to fill in the Roll Number, question booklet Alpha Code and question booklet Serial Number in the answer-sheet. The maximum time permitted for answering the 120 question was 120 minutes. To eliminate the use of unfair means at the examination, the same set of 120 questions were differently arranged in the four sets of questions booklet with Code A, B, C and D. Thus, the candidates were distributed one of these question booklet with Code A, B, C and D and they were required to mention the question booklet Code in the answer-sheet distributed to them. While the result of the said examination was under finalization, a complaint dated 10th April, 2000 was received regarding use of unfair means at the examination. The said complaint was forwarded by the Chairman of the Board at Allahabad to the SDGM Northern Railways New Delhi. A detailed enquiry was than conducted and the report dated 28th April, 2000 was sent by the Chairman of the Board to the Executive Director Establishment (RRB) New Delhi giving full particulars of the use of unfair means by 37 candidates who had appeared at the aforesaid examination. The said report is very comprehensive and in order to appreciate how these candidates had resorted to use of unfair means at the examination, we deem it necessary to quote the relevant portion : "during the evaluation process of the examination Code 303 as per the subject, following trend was observed for the top 200 candidates and a detailed analysis has been conducted to understand what went wrong. Bookseries No. of Candidates in Top 200 Total Candidates appeared A 36 1667 B 83 1667 C 40 1651 D 41 1588 Without Bookreries 3 Total, 200, 6576 Acute uneven distribution of the bookseries 'b' is observed among the top 200 candidates. As per statistical analysis, the probability of a candidate qualifying from a particular series remains almost equal for equal No. of candidates appearing in various bookseries. Relying on this, if we take a sample of 200 candidates the expected No. of candidates to qualify from a particular series should be in between 40 to 50 whereas the analysis shows a different picture i. e. 83 candidates out of 200 belong to bookseries B only. To further understand the same, a centrewise table showing total number as well as bookseries of candidates qualified from various centers was prepared which also shows uneven distribution (data at Annexure I ). Further a statement showing questions rightly attempted, wrongly attempted and left blank by all the candidates for the four bookseries was prepared. This analysis has been done for all top 200, top 50 and top 25 candidates (Data at Annexure II ). The analysis indicates that almost all the candidates falling in top 25 have "b" series Q. Booklet and have attempted Q. Nos. 18, 21, 22, 26, 32, 39, 42, 46, 47, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 71, 77, 85, 103, 116, 117, 120 wrongly. Not only they attempted wrongly but the wrong choice matched 98%. This happens only due to copying. Apart from these 25 candidates another 11 candidates in top 200 have followed the same pattern. Thus in all 36 candidates are found following same pattern of solving. Roll Nos. and Data for these candidates is enclosed at Annexure III. The data in Annexure III is for those candidates of 'b' series booklet who have certainly copied answers from a common solution, supplied to them by an outside agency, as is evident from the same questions wrongly answered by all of them. On the top of it the wrong choice also matches exactly in 19 to 20 answers for the 21 questions answered wrongly. Since there are four choices of answers for each question, the chances of selecting a wrong choice is 1 in 4. Similarly the chances of matching the wrong choices for two questions exactly will be 1/4 x 1/4 = 1/16 [i. e. 1: (4)2]. Extending this probability further the chances of wrong choices matching in 19 questions for two candidates will be 1: (4)19 i. e. 1 : 2. 75 x 1012 (one in three trillion ). Against this, the total No. of candidates in 'b' being 1667, and there is absolutely no chance of matching the wrong choices in 19 questions even for two candidates whereas in this case, there are 36 candidates identified in whose cases wrong answers of 19 questions are matching exactly. This is not possible unless the candidates have copied the answers from a "common solution" made available to them by an outside source. This "copying tactics" also gets further corroborated from the observation that following three candidates have intentionally shown the bookseries B on the answer sheet, whereas they had been given a different bookseries as per the booklet No. mentioned in the attendance sheet as well as answer sheet, because the series can be decoded from the booklet No. And these candidates have also managed to come in top 50. Roll No. , Booklet No. Bookseries Marks Obtained shown on Ans. Sheet, Actual as per booklet No. 1402543, 30386, B, C, 301 1402563, 10393, B, A, 294 2709447, 10699, B, A, 268 This error by top merit candidates happened apparently because the solution of B series was available to them though they did not get the B series question booklet from the invigilator. The marks obtained by these cheat candidates are among the highest, as can be seen from the merit position for the top 100 candidates, enclosed at Annexure V. A physical review of answer sheets of 'cheat' candidates confirms that 36 candidates out of the top 200 in the merit list, have copied the answers, apparently from a solution 'circulated' to them by an outside agency who somehow got 'b' series booklet smuggled out from one of the centres, got it solved quickly (though made quite a few mistakes in solving the questions because of time constraint) and sent photocopy of the solution to selected candidates. These 36 candidates belong to 13 out of total 21 centres where the exam was held. The analysis gives indication that the whole process was completed in a very organized and pre-planned manner. All the centres chosen for the exercise are situated within 3 to 4 km. distance from a central location and must have reached to candidates at various centres in last 15-30 minutes time. The whole modus operandi however obviates any leakage of question paper before it reached the examination centres. The skew distribution for various bookseries and other wrong choices matching analysis shows that there are only 36 candidates, as per data given in Annexure VI who have copied. "
(3.) THOUGH in the aforesaid letter only 36 candidates were mentioned but it was found that there were 37 candidates as the candidate bearing Roll No. 2709447 was also referred to in the letter dated 28th April, 2000. The aforesaid report dated 28th April, 2000 was placed before the Board which directed that action should be taken against all the 37 candidates who were suspected of having used unfair means at the examination. This resulted in show-cause notices being issued to all the 37 candidates. The candidates filed the replies and they were also called for personal hearing. At the time of personal hearing written replies and answer-sheets and question papers of each candidate were also taken out and scrutinized and the candidates were also asked to respond to some of the questions attempted during the examination. The report dated 6th June, 2002 shows that the charges, the written reply submitted by the candidates and the reply submitted by each of the candidate at the time of personal hearing was separately considered in detail and then recommendations were made. We quote below the observations made in respect of one such candidate Moinuddin Akhtar, but such detailed observations have been made in respect of all the 37 candidates : "observation: After considering his reply, the candidate alongwith other candidates was called for personal interview where also he could not give satisfactory reply for charges of answering of questions on a set pattern of choice. Further when he was asked to solve a few questions before undersigned he like many other candidates refused to do so on the ground that he was called for personal hearing not for appearing in written examination or interview. From the question booklet it is seen that no rough work has been done and booklet is quite clean except some tick marking of options. He was asked about how he solved mathematical questions without any rough work as there were about 20 mathematical question relating to arithmetic, mensuration, geometry etc. which required sufficient amount of rough work, he stated that he did himself orally. When he was asked to solve some of these questions by applying similar methods he refused to do so before undersigned. In response to matching of wrong answers with other candidates he offered the explanation that this is due to mere coincidence. All arguments put forward by the candidate were found to be unreasonable and hence unsatisfactory as the charges of copying were based on detailed computer analysis where it was found that solved questions (both right as well wrong) have been answered on a set pattern of choice, which is statistically not be possible without having access to a common solution (i. e. through outside assistance ). As such his argument is not acceptable. ";