Allahabad High Court
Sandeep Parihar And 28 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 17 April, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 8 1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4581 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sandeep Parihar And 28 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt Of Home Lko. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Radhika Singh,Rajat Rajan Singh,Rishabh Raj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agendra Sinha,Murtaza Hasnain Khan connected with 2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4633 of 2022 Petitioner :- Kanak Pal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8817 of 2022 Petitioner :- Chhaya Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addit. Chief Secy Deptt. Of Home Civil Secy Lko. Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.B. Singh,Rajeev Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 4. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3737 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ravendra Pratap Singh And 49 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Civil Secrtt. Lko And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Pankaj Kumar Srivastava,Rajat Rajan Singh,Suresh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Agendra Sinha,Mohd.Imran,Murtaza Hasnain Khan 5. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3795 of 2022 Petitioner :- Aman Tripathi And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 6. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4497 of 2022 Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishabh Tripathi,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 7. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4853 of 2022 Petitioner :- Aman Shakya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Up Govt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishit Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Ms. Radhika Singh, S/Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, Amrendra Nath Tripathi, J.B. Singh, Rajeev Mishra, Rajat Rajan Singh, Nishit Mishra, Rishabh Tripathi, Pankaj Kumar, learned counsels for the petitioners as well as Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel and S/Sri Murtaza Hasnain Khan, Sahil Usman, Ajit Warrier, Angad Kochhar and Agendra Sinha for opposite party no.6.
2. Since in all these writ petitions, common question of facts and law are involved, therefore, they are being heard and decided by a common judgement and order.
3. The present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the candidates, who have been unsuccessful in the selection of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commanders (PAC), which was held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 24.2.2021 for total posts of 9534.
4. The petitioners have doubted and raised finger in respect of the fairness of the examination. They have stated that integrity of the examination was wholly compromised at several centers of the examination. It has been further said that not only the petitioners, but also public in general does not have faith and trust in the examination process conducted for recruitment of 9534 posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander (PAC), and to restore the public faith, confidence and to maintain the fairness and to ensure integrity of the examination, the result of the select list is to be cancelled and fresh selection is to be conducted. The petitioners have also listed certain instances of compromising nature of the examination.
5. Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the whole examination system was compromised and there were mass irregularities in conducting the examination. The integrity and fairness of the examination were very much in doubt and, therefore, to restore the public faith and confidence in recruitment process for a public post, the result of the select list is to be cancelled and fresh selection is to be conducted.
6. This Court vide order dated 21.3.2023 directed the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment Board, Lucknow to remain present before this Court to personally explain the allegations made in the writ petitions in respect of the examination for the posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander (PAC).
7. In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 21.3.2023, on 23.3.2023 Sri Raj Kumar Vishwakarma, IPS, Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment Board, Lucknow, a very senior officer in the rank of Director General of Police along with the Secretary of the Recruitment Board was present before this Court. He explained the procedure in respect of the examination and stated that further affidavit would be filed to explain the steps taken for ensuring the fairness, impartiality and integrity of the examination. Thus, the affidavit dated 7.4.2023 has been filed on behalf of the Recruitment Board.
8. Besides bald allegations in the writ petitions, in the rejoinder affidavit specific allegations have been made by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court on 23.3.2023 passed the following order:-
"1. Heard Ms. Radhika Singh and Mr. Rishabh Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Sandeep Chandra, learned Standing Counsel and S/Sri Ajit Warrier, Angad Kochhar and Murtaza Hasnain Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.6.
2. In compliance of the order dated 21.3.2023 passed by this Court, Sri Raj Kumar Vishwakarma, IPS, Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Sri Ram Krishna Swarnkar, Additional Director General of Police and the Member Secretary of the Board are present. They have explained the procedure of monitoring on real time basis the performance of each candidate and making the system to some extent foolproof. However, the documents tendered today in Court in this regard have not been placed along with the counter affidavit. There is also no response to the specific allegation in the rejoinder affidavit dated 13.12.2022 filed by the petitioners in respect of the alleged gross irregularities in the examination.
3. Sri Sandeep Chandra, Learned Standing Counsel, who is representing the opposite parties, prays for and is allowed ten days' time to bring on record the relevant documents and also file reply to the specific allegation contained in the rejoinder affidavit dated 13.12.2022.
4. List this petition on 6.4.2023 peremptorily for further consideration.
5. Till further orders, personal appearance of the officers, who are present today, is dispensed with.?
9. The procedure prescribed for direct recruitment has been explained in paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 7.4.2023, which would read as under:-
"6. That the procedure as prescribed for direct recruitment and the same is adhered by the U.P. Police recruitment and promotion Board in the recruitment for the post of sub-Inspector and on other equivalent posts is as extracted below:-
I. "?????????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ???????? 2015?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? 40 ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? 100 ??? ????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? 400 ???????? ?? ???? ???
a. ??????? ??????
b. ??? ????/???????/??????? ?????
c. ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????
d. ?????? ??????? ???????/??????????? ???????/??????? ???????
ii. ????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? 35 ??????? ??? ??? ??? 50 ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ??, ????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ??????
iii. ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????????? (Impersonation) ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? Artificial Intelligence ??? Biometric Matching ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???
iv. ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?????/???????? ????????? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????????? ?? ?? ???? ?? Biometric Data ???????? ???? ???? ???
v. ??????? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??? CCTV Camera ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???
vi. ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ??? Artificial Intelligence ?? ????? ???? ???? ??, ?????? ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??-
a. Candidate Response Log (CRL)- ???????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??, ?????? ???????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????
b. Examination Day Performance Report- ????? ????? ??? ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ????????? ?? ??? ?? ?????????? ??? Idle ???? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?????? ???????? 15 ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ??????????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ???
c. View Time-CRL ??? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???
d. Response Time-CRL ??? ????????? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? View ?? ??? ?? Response ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????(Reading), ??????(Comprehending), ?? ?????(Solving) ??? ????? ????(Responding) ?? ????? ?? ?????????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???"
10. It is stated that the Recruitment Board with a view to conduct process of recruitment with complete fairness has prescribed norms and procedure which were strictly employed in the present recruitment as well. Scientific and technical tools were made applicable/utilised in the process of recruitment for proper assessment and evaluation of performance and scrutiny of each candidate and also to find out use of unfair means and use of outsources by any candidate and to eliminate such candidate from the examination.
11. To maintain the integrity of the examination, Candidate Response Log (for short ?CRL?) and Exam Day Performance Report of each candidate were prepared technically on the basis of Algorithm by the Work Executing Agency of the examination and such reports of each candidate have been preserved by the Recruitment Board. In CRL record performance and activity of each candidate in examination period of two hours is reflected. After examination of the CRL, it was found that 351 candidates had used unfair means and consequently they were debarred from the examination. 56 FIRs have been lodged against 170 candidates and in-charge of the centers. All such candidates were debarred from the selection process. Online written examination was for 160 questions to be completed in two hours and 40 questions of each subject were required to be solved by a candidate. Performance of some of the candidates as per the CRL has been mentioned in the said affidavit.
12. It is also stated that against 9534 posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander (PAC), 12,30,498 applications were received and around 8,07,256 candidates appeared in the examination. Out of these 8,07,256 candidates, who appeared in the examination, only 351 candidates were found to have been involved in using unfair means, which comes to 0.028%.
13. In respect of the petitioners, it is stated that out of 29 petitioners of Writ-A No.4581 of 2022, only 11 petitioners have mentioned their roll numbers and their performance was checked and, it was found that five petitioners were not successful in the written examination and 6 candidates were not successful in final selection due to securing lesser marks than the cut off marks. After the petitioners became unsuccessful, they have come before this Court asking for cancellation of the result of the select list and for conducting fresh selection.
14. Sri Raj Kumar Vishwakarma, IPS, who was present in the Court, has specifically said that even if in future some allegation is received against any selected candidate, such allegation would be thoroughly inquired into and, if it is found that the persons got selected by using unfair means or the section was not fair, it would be cancelled.
15. There can be no doubt in respect of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the recruitment process for a public post has to be free, fair, impartial and above any doubt not only in the minds of the candidates but also in the minds of public in general. Some stray instances in respect of the malpractices would not mar the whole examination of such a large scale and magnitude where more than eight lakhs candidates participated in the examination. The chart tendered today in the Court by the learned Standing Counsel regarding analysis of the division-wise and district-wise number of the selected candidates would suggest that people got selected from all over the State in even numbers.
16. The Court cannot be expected to indulge in roving and fishing inquiry in respect of the allegations of fairness, impartiality and bona fide of the examination. The Court is not to embark upon an inquiry by itself. The Court has to see whether the procedure and the means of tools employed for conducting the examination are correct and have been used properly.
17. Considering the stand of the Recruitment Board, though there has been use of unfair means at some centers by some candidates, but that does not mean that there has been mass irregularities, which would warrant this Court to cancel the whole selection process of 8,07,256 candidates.
18. The principles laid down in the case of Sachin Kumar and others Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and others, (2021) 4 SCC 631 are fully applicable in respect of any recruitment process for a public post. However, the facts for cancellation of the examination should be so grossed, which would make the credibility of the examination absolutely doubtful. From the examples given by the writ petitioners, this Court finds that sanctity of the recruitment process, as a whole, cannot be said to be defied and the entire examination would not get vitiated if there have been no systematic irregularities in conducting the recruitment process. In fact, the Board has made every endeavour to maintain the sanctity and integrity of the examination as far as possible. Paragraphs 65 to 68 of the aforesaid judgment, which are relevant, would read as under:-
?64. We find on the basis of the record that there is substance in the submission which has been urged by the ASG. The complaints in regard to the recruitment process related both to the Tier I and Tier II examinations. The complaints were carefully analysed by the first Committee and as noted earlier serious irregularities were found. The irregularities were not confined to acts of malpractice or unfair means on the part of a specific group of persons. On the contrary, the report of the Committee found deficiencies of a systemic nature which cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the entire process of recruitment involving both the Tier I and Tier II examinations. The Order of the Deputy Chief Minister dated 23-12-2015 did not differ with the conclusions of the first Committee. In fact, the said order refrained from commenting on the findings of the first Committee. All that the Deputy Chief Minister's order directed was the narrowing of the scope of further investigation to one of the irregularities, that is, impersonation. In directing that a verification be carried out on whether any of the candidates in the zone of selection had been guilty of impersonation, the Deputy Chief Minister's order did not wipe out the irregularities in the entire examination process. It is not possible to accept the submission that after ordering a verification on impersonation, nothing further remained to be done and that there could be no further rejection of the sanctity of the process on the basis of the report of the first Committee. It is quite possible that the Deputy Chief Minister directed a further investigation into the allegations of impersonation only to lend credibility to the ultimate decision which he would take. Mr Patwalia has made a strenuous effort to read from the explanation submitted byDsssb, urging that as many as three IAS officers and other officers who had appended their signatures to the explanatory note provided a justification to the defence that the Tier I and Tier II examinations did not suffer from flaws. It must be noted that the conduct ofDsssb and its officials was itself under a cloud. Their explanation could by no means be regarded as conclusive or binding upon the authorities ofGnctd. The Deputy Chief Minister in recommending that the entire process be cancelled emphasised the systemic nature of the violations which had taken place. These violations may or may not involve all of the candidates within the ultimate zone of selection but that in our view is beside the point for the simple reason that the gravamen of the charge in the present case is not in regard to the taint which attaches to a specific group of persons but to the sanctity of the recruitment process as a whole. The precedents of this Court sufficiently demonstrate that when the credibility of an entire examination stands vitiated by systemic irregularities, the issue then is not about seeking to identify the candidates who are tainted. In the present case, as we have seen, there was a basic denial of equal access to the Tier I examination. The nature of the allegations which were found to be substantiated upon a careful examination by the first Committee showed that the credibility of the process itself had been eroded. In such a situation, where a decision is taken by the Government to cancel the entire process, it cannot be held to be irrational or arbitrary, applying the yardstick of fair procedure and proportionality to the decision-making process.
65.During the course of his submissions, Mr P.S. Patwalia has sought to provide explanations for each of the systemic irregularities pointed out by the first Committee, including the drastic reduction in the number of candidates who appeared for the Tier I examination, non-issuance of hard copies of admit cards, shortlisting of candidates belonging to a certain geographical area, lack of randomisation in the examination centres, among others. In response to this, the learned ASG has pointed out that while assessing whether the recruitment process has been compromised, the factors (or irregularities) must be looked at cumulatively to ascertain whether they are sufficiently grave to cancel the recruitment. We find ourselves in agreement with the learned ASG. So long as there is sufficient basis to contend that mass-scale irregularities have occurred, this Court need not indulge in a roving inquiry to rule out all possible explanations and alternative scenarios where such irregularities would be justified.
66.Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrongdoing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrongdoing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment. Both the High Court and the Tribunal have, in our view, erred in laying exclusive focus on the report of the second Committee which was confined to the issue of impersonation. The report of the second Committee is only one facet of the matter. The Deputy Chief Minister was justified in going beyond it and ultimately recommending that the entire process should be cancelled on the basis of the findings which were arrived at in the report of the first Committee. Those findings do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal found any fault with those findings. In this view of the matter, both the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are unsustainable.
67.During the course of her submissions, the ASG has placed on record the fact that in the subsequent recruitment processes a number of the 281 candidates participated afresh. An age relaxation had been granted. In 2017, 133 out of 281 candidates participated and 13 were selected. In 2020, 87 out of the 281 participated, and 3 of them were short-listed. During the course of her submissions, the ASG has also submitted that even among the 281 candidates, it is not possible to conclude that all of them are untainted. In the view which we have taken it is not necessary to dwell on this aspect of the matter once the Court has arrived at the conclusion that the entire process was vitiated and that the cancellation was proper.
68.The Tribunal while setting aside the decision to cancel the recruitment process directed the Government to process the appointments of all 281 candidates who were found to be within the zone of selection though as a matter of fact only 6 of them had moved the Tribunal. AfterDsssbandGnctdmoved the High Court in proceedings under Article 226 to challenge the decision of the Tribunal, intervention applications were moved by several candidates. These interventions were rejected by the High Court and we have also extracted from the order passed during the pendency of the proceedings on 15-12-2017 [Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Boardv.Puneet Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12842] in para 20 of this judgment. The High Court while dismissing the applications for intervention noted that the cause of action had accrued on 15-3-2016 when the entire examination had been cancelled, in spite of which none of the intervening candidates had challenged the decision. The judgment of the High Court in the present case was delivered on 13-1-2020 [Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Boardv.Puneet Kumar, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 76] and it is only thereafter that this Court has been moved under Article 136 of the Constitution. Some of the petitioners who instituted special leave petitions before this Court had not even moved applications for intervention before the High Court. Others did not pursue their remedies against the order of the High Court dated 15-12-2017 [Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Boardv.Puneet Kumar, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12842] for over 2 years. They have taken no steps to challenge the decision for the cancellation of the examination. In view of the fact that we have upheld the submissions ofDsssbandGnctdand proceed to set aside the judgment of the High Court, the SLPs filed by the candidates would have to stand rejected, in any event.?
19. In view thereof, I do not find much substance in the arguments of Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners for cancelling the whole examination. However, following directions are required to ensure the faith in the recruitment process by the Board and to maintain the sanctity of the examination in future:-
(i) The Board should employ 5 Star CRISIL rated companies, such as Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys etc. whose credentials are well known, or any other company not below the 5 Star rating for conducting the examination. It is not required that every time the Government/Board has to call for a bidding process to select the company. The Government/Board may call the 5 Star rated company and may also entrust the work by private negotiations after comparing the rates quoted by these companies.
(ii) The result of all the selected candidates should be closely examined by the Board by constituting a committee of three members under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of the Board and, if it is found that any person has used unfair means to get selected, his result should be cancelled and he should be ousted, and if required, FIR should be registered against such a person.
(iii) The Board should make every endeavour to maintain the faith, trust, impartiality and integrity of the recruitment process in future.
(iv) As a result of scrutinizing the result, if some selected candidates are ousted, the Board may revise the result and include equal number of candidates in the select list from the merit list of the examination.
20. With the above observations and directions, the present petitions stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.4.2023 Rao/-