# Km. Lakshmi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 26
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-17
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 1760 of 2026
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-lakshmi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54869
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Moreover, eligibility is to be seen on the last date of submission of the application form and once
the writ petitioner does not possess required certificate of internship is not liable to be considered
for participating in the selections."

17. Accordingly, no relief can be accorded to the writ petitioners. The writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 26
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 1760 of 2026
Along with other connected cases

Km. Lakshmi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of cancellation of written examination as the question-paper was leaked out, particularly when its
result was declared.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Recruitment - Post of Assistant Professors - Written examination - Papers was
leaked, in respect of which two First Information Reports were lodged and after investigation,
two charge sheets were filed against four accused persons - Irregularity was found to be
committed by few person - Effect - Earlier result of written examination was declared, but
subsequently it was cancelled - Validity challenged
Held : If irregularities were committed even by few candidates, it would be a case to quash entire
examination, subject to inquiry and supported materials - There were substantial evidence and material with
State that paper of written examination for atleast five subjects were leaked and sold to beneficiaries. The
investigation has prima facie concluded that atleast 19 candidates were definitely benefited - The submission
of learned Senior Advocate for petitioners that allegations in First Information Reports were not sufficient to
extent that no irregularity was committed, cannot be accepted since after investigation two charge sheets
were already filed. [Para 18, 19 and 20]
Further held : A candidate has no indefeasible right to be selected or to force the State to conclude an
examination process which was tainted since papers of written examination were leaked and candidates were
benefited also. It is the fairness which is the utmost object to conduct any examination and under no
circumstance it can be permitted to compromise. [Para 26] (E-1)
Case Law Cited
Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India and others, (2024) 2 SCC 743; Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan and others
(1981) 4 SCC 159; Tanvi Sarwal vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others (2015) 6 SCC 573; and,
State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Raj Kumar and others (2023) 3 SCC 773; State of West Bengal vs.
Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and others, 2025 INSC 437; Sachin Kumar and Others vs. Delhi
3 All. Km. Lakshmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
27
Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 631; Bihar School Examination Board
vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others, (1970) 1 SCC 648; Board of High School and Intermediate Education,
U.P., Allahabad vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1110; Anamica Mishra and Others vs.
U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Others, (1990) Supp SCC 692; Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal,
M.P. vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others, (1998) 9 SCC 236; Union of India and Others vs. Rajesh
P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 285; Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others vs. State of
Punjab and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 356; Joginder Pal and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC
644; Chairman, All India Railways Recruitment Board and Another vs. K. Shyam Kumar and Others, (2010) 6
SCC 614; State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs. A. Kalaimani and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 217; Gohil Vishvaraj
Hanubhai and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 621; Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India
and Others, (2024) 9 SCC 743; Employees State Insurance Corporation and another vs. Dr. Vinay Kumar and
others, (2022)18 SCC 358 - referred to.

List of Acts
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita - Sections 112, 308(5) and 318(4).

List of Keywords
Advertisement, Written Examination, First Information Report, Charge sheet, Irregularity, Evaluation process,
Result, Selection process, Systematic unfairness, Substantial evidence, Petty organized crime, Cheating, Leak
of paper, Malaise, Fraud.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 04.09.2025 cancelling the result of written examination conducted in pursuance of the
advertisement no. 51 of 2022 issued for the post of Assistant Professors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Ashok Khare, Sr. Adv.; Mohd. Yasin, Dinesh Kumar Pathak, Siddharth Khare
Advs. for the Respondents : Sanjeev Singh, AAG; Saurabh, Gagan Mehta

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. Petitioners, in present bunch of writ petitions, have participated in a recruitment process
initiated in pursuance of Advertisement No. 51 of year 2022 to fill up 910 posts of Assistant
Professors in different aided non-Government Post Graduate Colleges.

2. U.P. Education Service Selection Commission issued a schedule for written examination
which was held on 16th / 17th April, 2025 in two shifts at 52 different Examination Centers in six
Districts for 33 different Subjects.

3. Immediately after the written examinations, two First Information Reports, being FIR No.
0144 dated 20.04.2025 and FIR No. 0181 dated 21.04.2025, were lodged at Police Stations Vibhuti
Khand, Lucknow East and Chinhat, Lucknow East, against four persons, alleging that accused were
involved in providing question papers of written examination to the participants after taking huge
money.

4. In pursuance of above First Information Reports, investigation was commenced and at
highest level of State such irregularities were taken note of, as to whether continue with
examination process or not. A decision was taken to commence evaluation process vide a
28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notification dated 24.07.2025. It appears that the decision was taken in pursuance of a Three
Members Committees report.

5. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Yasin, learned counsel for
petitioners, submitted that in pursuance of aforesaid decision the Commission issued result of
written examination and according to petitioners they stood in merit in the result and were awaiting
for interview schedule.

6. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that a notice dated 20.01.2026 was issued by
Secretary, U.P. Education Services Selection Commission, Prayagraj, whereby it was
communicated that result issued on 04.09.2025 was cancelled and a fresh schedule for written
examination was published.

7. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that State has no substantial material to cancel the
entire result of written examination since there was no evidence of systematic irregularities so
much as that purity of entire selection was compromised. He also referred documents placed
alongwith counter affidavit, specifically a report dated 02.01.2026 submitted by Additional
Director General of Police, Law and Order/ S.T.F., Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and for reference the
same, in its entirety, is reproduced hereinafter:

"सेवा में, दिनाांक- जनवरी 02, 2026

प्रमुख सदिव (गृह),

उत्तर प्रिेश, शासन।

कृपया वररष्ठ पुदिस अधीक्षक, एस0टी0एफ0, उ0प्र0 के माध्यम से प्राप्त श्री िीपक कुमार दसांह, पुदिस उपाधीक्षक, एसटीएफ मुख्यािय,
िखनऊ के पत्र दि0-29.12.2025 के द्वारा अवगत कराया गया है दक उत्तर प्रिेश दशक्षा सेवा ियन आयोग के दवज्ञापन सांख्या-51 द्वारा सहायक
आिायय के पि हेतु आयोदजत की गयी परीक्षा के सांबांध में थाना दवभूदतखांड िखनऊ में पांजीकृत मु0अ0सां0-144/2025 धारा 112, 308(5),
318(4) बीएनएस 2023 में अदभयुक्तगण महबूब अिी, बैजनाथ पाि व दवनय पाि को परीक्षा में धाांधिी, पेपर आउट कराने तथा अभ्यदथयों से भारी
मात्रा में पैसे का िेन-िेन करने के आरोप में दगरफ्तार दकया गया था। दगरफ्तार अदभयुक्तों के मोबाइि नम्बरों- 8896480786, 9450170055,
9450218155 को एसटीएफ में उपिब्ध तकनीकी सांसाधनों का दवश्लेषण करने एवां मुखदबर तांत्र से प्राप्त अदभसूिना को दवकदसत करते हुए प्रथम
दृष्टया 21 सांदिग्ध मोबाइि नांबरों को दिदहहत दकया गया, दजनका परीक्षा सांबांधी डाटा से दमिान दकये जाने हेतु परीक्षा दनयांत्रक उत्तर प्रिेश दशक्षा सेवा
ियन आयोग, प्रयागराज को आख्या प्रेदषत की गयी थी, दजसके प्रत्युत्तर में 19 अभ्यदथयों के रोि नांबर व अहय सूिनाएां प्राप्त हुयी थी। उक्त डाटा का उत्तर
प्रिेश दशक्षा सेवा ियन आयोग, प्रयागराज की वेबसाइट पर घोदषत पररणाम से दमिान करने पर सभी 19 अभ्यदथयों को अपने-अपने दवषय में उत्तीणय होना
पाया गया है, जो दि० 16.04.2025 एवां दि० 17.04.2025 को सम्पहन परीक्षा में अदनयदमतता को िशायता है। दगरफ्तार अदभयुक्त महबूब अिी ने
पूछताछ करने पर बताया था दक तत्कािीन समय में आयोग के अध्यक्ष के गोपनीय सहायक के रूप में तैनात था एवां पेपर मॉडरेशन एवां दनमायण की प्रदिया
के िौरान इन पेपरों का रखरखाव करता था। ऐसे में इस पूरी परीक्षा की शुदिता भांग करने में महबूब अिी की भूदमका रही है। दगरफ्तार अदभयुक्त महबूब
अिी ने पैसा िेकर जो पेपर उपिब्ध कराए थे, वे फजी न होकर मूि पेपर के प्रश्नों से ही तैयार दकये गये थे। आयोग द्वारा उपिब्ध कराए गये 21 मोबाइि
नांबरों से सांबांदधत डाटा में से 19 अभ्यथी परीक्षा में सफि दिख रहे हैं, दजससे स्पष्ट है दक िोनों दिवसों में सांपहन प्रश्नगत परीक्षा की शुदिता भांग है। उपरोक्त
के दृदष्टगत उत्तर प्रिेश दशक्षा सेवा ियन आयोग के दवज्ञापन सांख्या-51 द्वारा सहायक आिायय के पि हेतु आयोदजत की गयी परीक्षा को दनरस्त कराये जाने
हेतु अनुरोध दकया गया है।

अतएव अनुरोध है दक उत्तर प्रिेश दशक्षा सेवा ियन आयोग के दवज्ञापन सांख्या-51 द्वारा सहायक आिायय के पि हेतु आयोदजत की गयी
परीक्षा को दनरस्त कराये जाने हेतु अग्रेतर काययवाही कराये जाने का कष्ट करें।
3 All. Km. Lakshmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
29
सांिग्नक-यथोपरर
(अदमताभ यश)
अपर पुदिस महादनिेशक
कानून-व्यवस्था/एस०टी०एफ,
उत्तर प्रिेश"

8. Learned Senior Advocate, by referring the above report, submitted that aforesaid report
does not come to a specific conclusion that 19 selected students were benefited by accused persons
by providing question papers, in advance. In the report there was only a reference of phone
numbers of said 19 candidates having connection with accused which would not be sufficient to
quash entire result of written examination and, at best, result of said 19 selected candidates could
be cancelled.

9. Learned Senior Advocate also referred contents of First Information Reports that it would
not be sufficient to quash the entire result of written examination. In support of above submission
learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of
Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India and others, (2024)2 SCC 743 and for reference relevant
paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereinafter:

"67. In arriving at a conclusion as to whether an examination suffers from widespread
issues, courts must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material
on record, including investigative reports, point to that conclusion. There must be at least some
evidence to allow the Court to reach that conclusion. This standard need not be unduly strict. To
elaborate, it is not necessary for the material on record to point to one and only conclusion which
is that malpractice has taken place at a systemic level. However, there must be a 14 In this regard,
see our analysis of Anamica Mishra (supra) at paragraph 62 of this judgment as well as the
observations of the Court in Rajesh PU (supra) at paragraph 69 of this judgment. real possibility
of systemic malaise as borne out by the material before the Court. In Bihar School Examination
Board (supra), this Court recognised that "sufficient material" must be present to justify a decision
to cancel examinations:

"14. ... If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and are managed to
secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at
an average of 50%, it is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the matter.
It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence
etc., before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on
which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the examinations
ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the university's appreciation of the
problem must be respected."

68. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. (supra), too, the Court placed great reliance on
the report of the Naib Tehsildar, which indicated that the students in question were copying
unchecked and that it was not possible to separate them from the ones who were not copying.

69. In Union of India v. Rajesh P.U., 2003:ISC:343 the Court was concerned with a case
where it was possible to separate the beneficiaries of malpractice from the candidates who
conducted themselves in an upright manner. It held that there was no justification to cancel the
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entire selection and emphasized the importance of the information available to the Court as well as
that of concrete and relevant material, in the following terms:

"In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or categorical finding
supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-pervasive
nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a
whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries of one or the other irregularities, or
illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to the other
selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or
the other reasons. Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the
selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no
infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and
allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations
throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and
reasonably to meet the situation."

"90. In Sachin Kumar's case (supra), the two-Judge Bench of this Court (of which one of
us, D Y Chandrachud, J., was a part) was concerned with the recruitment process for the post of
Head Clerk. The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi cancelled the process on
the basis of certain irregularities in the conduct of the examination. The Central Administrative
Tribunal annulled this decision of the Government. In proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, the decision of the Central
Administrative Tribunal was partly affirmed. The appeals arising from the decision of the High
Court resulted in the case before this Court."

10. Per contra, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri
Saurabh, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for State-Respondents, has opposed the aforesaid
submissions and supported the decision of State to cancel result of written examination and for that
he placed reliance on judgments passed by Supreme Court in Lila Dhar vs. State of Rajasthan
and others (1981)4 SCC 159; Tanvi Sarwal vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and
others (2015)6 SCC 573; and, State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Raj Kumar and
others (2023)3 SCC 773.

11. Learned Additional Advocate General has also referred the report dated 02.01.2026 and
exercise conducted by Special Task Force to co-relate the data of mobile numbers available with
accused with corresponding roll numbers and name of candidates benefited.

12. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that after investigation two
charge sheets have already been filed on 08.06.2025, i.e., before impugned decision was taken.
According to him decision is a reasoned decision and to ensure fairness in examination, entire
result of written examination was cancelled since fairness was compromised.

13. It is also pointed out that about 19 beneficiaries were detected but it is possible that paper
was leaked to other candidates also. In all, examination was for 910 posts and in case out of them
atleast 19 candidates were found benefited, it would be sufficient to hold that entire process
become unfair.
3 All. Km. Lakshmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
31

14. Learned Additional Advocate General has also submitted that the judgment relied on by
learned Senior Advocate for petitioners in the case of Vanshika Yadav (supra) is distinguishable
since in that case the Supreme Court was considering examination of NEET, i.e., a Pan India
Examination, wherein lacs of students have participated, therefore, a localize unfairness was not
considered sufficient to cancel entire selection process, whereas present examination is extended to
Uttar Pradesh only for only 910 seats and that it was not yet concluded as after written
examination, selected candidates were required to face interview.

15. Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-3, i.e., U.P. Education
Service Selection Commission, Prayagraj, has adopted above submission made by learned
Additional Advocate General and further submitted that Commission is bound to carry out
selection process in utmost sincerity and fairness.

16. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused material available on record.

17. Before Court proceed to consider rival submissions on given facts, with regard to legal
position on the issue involved, i.e., when entire selection process could be struck down in case of
systematic unfairness and irregularities, few paragraphs of a recent judgment passed by Supreme
Court in State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and others, 2025
INSC 437, being relevant, are reproduced hereinafter:

"7. This Court in several cases has examined the question when the entire selection
process should be struck down in case of irregularities. It will be apposite to refer to some of the
decisions as the ratio and reasoning, in our opinion, is clear and does not suffer from
contradictions. In Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board
(DSSSB) and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 631 this Court observed that determining when the
examination process is vitiated by irregularities requires an in-depth fact-finding inquiry. The
answer lies in examining 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. These are situations where it is difficult to separate the tainted from the
untainted participants, and the irregularities are widespread, indicating a malaise or fraud that
has corrupted the process. On the other hand, there are cases where only some participants have
committed irregularities. In such cases, it may be possible to segregate the wrongdoers from those
who adhered to the rules. The innocent should not suffer for the actions of the wrongdoers. By
segregating the guilty, the selection process for the untainted candidates can proceed to its logical
conclusion. This aligns with the principle of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) of the
Constitution of India, as well as the fundamental requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution,
which mandates a fair, equitable, and reasonable process. Care must be taken to ensure that the
innocent are not unfairly penalized alongside the wrongdoers by cancelling the entire process. To
treat the innocent and the wrongdoers equally would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it
would involve treating unequals equally. The innocent should not be punished for faults they did
not commit. Finally, while the decision of the recruiting body is subject to judicial control, the body
must retain a measure of discretion.
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Sachin Kumar (supra) refers to an earlier decision of three Judges of this Court in
Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others, (1970) 1 SCC 648 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.

9. In Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad v. Ghanshyam
Das Gupta and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1110 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that when there
is a discovery of widespread unfair practices, such as the leakage of question papers or destruction
of answer books, it may not be necessary to give each examinee an opportunity to be heard. While
it may not be appropriate to completely whittle down the requirement of natural justice and fair
play, a straitjacket formula cannot be applied when the examination was not properly conducted or
when the majority of the examinees did not act as they should have. Therefore, insisting that the
Board should hold a detailed inquiry into each individual case was considered incorrect. It was
also observed that such an approach would delay the functioning of an autonomous body like the
Board of High School and Intermediate Education.

10. In line with the above ratio, this Court in Anamica Mishra and Others v. U.P. Public
Service Commission, Allahabad and Others, (1990) Supp SCC 692 has held that the cancellation of
the entire recruitment process was not justified as there was no systemic flaw in the entire
recruitment process, and the issue was only with regard to calling the candidates for interview.
However, in Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others,
(1998) 9 SCC 236 the entire examination was cancelled in view of the report of mass copying and
leakage of the question paper. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. (supra), the teachers did not
object to the students entering the examination hall with books, indicating their complicity. It was
held that the fact that some innocent students may have suffered in the given facts was
inconsequential.

11. Similarly, in Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another,
(2003) 7 SCC 285 this Court examined a case where a Special Committee scrutinized the answer
sheets of 134 successful and 184 unsuccessful candidates, identifying only 31 as involved in unfair
practices. Based on this, the Court struck down the decision of the competent authority to cancel
the entire recruitment process, deeming it extreme, unreasonable, and unnecessary given the
circumstances. The Court applied the test of whether there were widespread, pervasive issues that
had undermined the entire process and whether it was impossible to weed out those benefiting from
the irregularities or illegalities.

12. In yet another decision in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others, (2006) 11 SCC 356 this 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
3 All. Km. Lakshmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
33
system itself was corrupt. This three-pronged test, as outlined by Sinha J., is appropriate and
should be adhered to.

13. The precursor to Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) involved raids that led to the
recovery of large sums of cash from the house of the Chairman of the Punjab Public Service
Commission. The allegations suggested that the Chairman who served from 1996 to 2002 had
made several appointments between 1998 and 2001 for extraneous considerations, including
monetary ones. The affected appellants before this Court, whose services were terminated,
comprised four categories of officers selected through four recruitment examinations held between
1997 and 2001. Two FIRs came to be registered against the Chairman and other officers of the
Public Service Commission. However, among the selectees, an FIR was filed only against one. In
this factual background, Sinha J. drew a distinction between a proven case of mass cheating in a
Board Exam and an unproven charge of corruption in the context of appointment of a civil servant.
The en masse termination order setting aside several selections spread over 3-4 years was
reversed. This was an unprecedented case of mass termination, with a walloping impact and
consequences. Applying the threefold factual and legal test, en masse termination was set aside. In
this context, it was observed that termination orders should only be issued in cases where it is
found to be impossible or highly improbable to separate the tainted cases from the non-tainted
ones.

14. In our considered view, the 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). We would like to observe that the en masse termination in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon
(supra) was based on the charge of corruption against the former Chairman, leading to the
cancellation of the entire selection process and appointments, even though the charges against him
had not yet been proven in a court of law.

15. Similarly, in another two Judge Bench decision in Joginder Pal and Others v. State of
Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 644 this Court observed that every effort should be made to
separate tainted from untainted candidates, and if it is found that segregating the tainted from
untainted is possible, cancellation of the entire selection process would be incompatible with law.

16. In Chairman, All India Railways Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar
and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 614 where the decision of the Railway Recruitment Board to cancel the
examination and conduct retest on the ground of malpractices involving mass copying, leakage of
question paper and impersonation was struck down by the High Court, this Court reversing the
judgment of the High Court upheld the order of the Board to cancel the examination and conduct
retest. Considering the material on record, the widespread irregularities and malpractice in the
first written test, and the ultimate object of fair selection, this Court upheld the finding of the Board
that the test was vitiated due to mass copying, impersonation, and question paper leakage, rather
than misconduct by just a few candidates. In the said facts and circumstance, the decision of the
Board to cancel the selection and reconduct the examination was held to be reasonable and wellbalanced.

17. In State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others, (2021) 16 SCC 217
there were allegations of large-scale malpractices involving tampering with OMR sheets. After reevaluation and further scrutiny, the Teachers Recruitment Board found that 196 candidates had
been the beneficiaries of fraudulent alteration of marks. This Court referred to the observations in
Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2017) 13 SCC 621 to hold
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the authority of the State to maintain the purity of the examination process is unquestionable.
Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai (supra) takes note of the settled dictum that the cancellation of the
examination is necessary and required in cases where large-scale malpractices in the course of the
conduct of any examination process are alleged. In this context, this Court in A. Kalaimani (supra)
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.

18. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others, (2024) 9 SCC 743 this Court
observed that a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the extent of unfair means used and
whether it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. 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.

19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion:
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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."

18. According to records, the written examination was conducted for 910 posts of Assistant
Professors for 33 different Subjects at 52 different Centers in six Districts of State of Uttar Pradesh.
Therefore, comparing to other examinations of Pan India, it was an examination conducted within a
very narrow campus. If irregularities were committed even by few candidates, it would be a case to
quash entire examination, subject to inquiry and supported materials.

19. The material brought on record shows that two First Information Reports were lodged and
after investigation, two charge sheets were filed against four accused persons. Therefore, there
were substantial evidence and material with State that paper of written examination for atleast five
3 All. Km. Lakshmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
35
subjects were leaked and sold to beneficiaries. The investigation has prima facie concluded that
atleast 19 candidates were definitely benefited.

20. The submission of learned Senior Advocate for petitioners that allegations in First
Information Reports were not sufficient to extent that no irregularity was committed, cannot be
accepted since after investigation two charge sheets were already filed on 08.06.2025 under
Sections 112, 308(5) and 318(4) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, i.e., for offence of "petty organized
crime"; "extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt"; and, "cheating".

21. The Court also takes note of material brought on record by State-Respondents and
Commission that a proper consideration was made at higher level of State on basis of a report of
STF that it was a case of systematic irregularities and wide spread unfair means were used, since
different papers were leaked and sold to beneficiaries, i.e., candidates. It is not a case where the
State has not conducted any inquiry, rather inquiry has contemplated in lodging of two First
Information Reports and after investigation two charge sheets have also been filed.

22. In above background, the Court takes note of the judgment passed in Baishakhi
Bhattacharyya (supra) wherein Supreme Court after considering various judgments passed in the
cases of Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB)
and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 631; Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha
and Others, (1970) 1 SCC 648; Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.,
Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Others, AIR 1962 SC 1110; Anamica Mishra and
Others v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Others, (1990) Supp SCC 692;
Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others, (1998) 9
SCC 236; Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another, (2003) 7
SCC 285; Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2006) 11 SCC
356; Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 644; Chairman,
All India Railways Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and Others, (2010)
6 SCC 614; State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others, (2021) 16 SCC
217; Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2017) 13 SCC
621; Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others, (2024) 9 SCC 743, finally in para 19 set out
a principle that if an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systematic irregularities, such as malaise or
fraud, that undermine the integrity of entire selection process, there would be no harm if the result
is cancelled in its entirety. Though an attempt can be made to segregate tainted and untainted
candidates.

23. The standard of inquiry should be fair investigation. It is not necessary that malpractice is
required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Whereas, as referred above, in the present case,
not only two First Information Reports were lodged but after investigation two charge sheets were
filed that atleast 19 candidates were got benefited. A possibility is not ruled out that papers were
leaked to other candidates also and that they may also get benefit of it, to be included in select list.
Impugned decision is, therefore, justified by probability test also.

24. As referred above, present examination is only for 910 posts and, therefore, it is not a case
where number of candidates are very high. Even petitioners before this Court are only 224. Only on
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a ground that despite two First Information Reports were lodged the Commission proceeded with
evaluation of written examination and result was declared, therefore, no subsequent decision could
be taken to cancel it, cannot be accepted since State has meanwhile conducted an in-depth
investigation and after being satisfied that integrity of examination was compromised, there was no
legal basis to take a subsequent decision to continue it.

25. In aforesaid circumstances, Court finds that a decision to cancel result of written
examination was based on a detail inquiry, outcome of investigation and a specific proof that
atleast about 19 candidates were benefited as well as that process of present examination was not
concluded entirely since only result of written examination was declared and process of interview
was not commenced. It is not a case where entire selection process was already concluded.
Therefore, petitioners cannot claim that they were adversely affected being finally selected since
they still have to go through rigor of interview.

26. The Court also takes note of a settled legal position that a candidate has no indefeasible
right to be selected or to force the State to conclude an examination process which was tainted
since papers of written examination were leaked and candidates were benefited also. It is the
fairness which is the utmost object to conduct any examination and under no circumstance it can be
permitted to compromise (See, Employees State Insurance Corporation and another vs. Dr.
Vinay Kumar and others, (2022)18 SCC 358).

27. In view of above, I find no reason to interfere with impugned decision. Petitioners can still
participate in fresh written examination, for which a schedule has already been published.

28. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 36
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 363 of 2025

Veer Pal Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the bail granted to the accused in a case under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act was liable to be cancelled on account of alleged misuse of bail liberty by again harassing
and threatening the victim, leading to her suicide and registration of a subsequent criminal case u/s 108 BNS.

Headnotes