# Tarun Chaudhary & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 927
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 11427 of 2022
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tarun-chaudhary-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53830
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Aishwarya Pratap Singh, C.S.C.

Issue for consideration:
Whether the candidates can be debarred only
on the allegation that they have solved the
question papers in a very short time, which is
humanly impossible and where the whole
exercise of debarment is based upon the CRL
(Candidate Response Log Report, which means
complete video recording of candidates during
the examination period)?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Once there is no
complaint and no information about the
use of unfair means and nothing has been
recovered from the possession of the
candidates, only suspicion cannot be a
ground to cancel the candidature ruining
their career. (Para 50)

In the present case, for use of unfair means, no
rules have ever been framed, no procedure
regarding cancellation of candidature has ever
been informed to candidates and further, they
have also not been informed that they have to
solve the question paper in a particular time
bound manner. In fact, no compliant or any
adverse information has been received against
any of the petitioners and nothing has been
recovered from their possession. Prior to
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cancellation of the candidature, no opportunity
of hearing or rebuttal was given to petitioners
and the decision has been taken in gross
violation of natural justice based upon
surmises and conjunctures. (Para 51)

The conduct of respondent-authorities are
most irresponsible or unbecoming of
government
servant
rather
they
are
behaving like a group of unlawful persons.
In Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 dated
15.9.2022, stand of the State respondents is
clear that FIR has been lodged against the
petitioners and other candidates and they have
not been permitted to appear in next phase of
the examination and accordingly ousted from
the selection process due to use of unfair
means, whereas in the affidavit of Chairman of
Board,
Lucknow
dated
27.2.2025
entirely
different view has been taken that petitioners
themselves left the examination. Such type of
conduct
of
State-respondents
is
highly
depreciated.
It
is
expected
that
State
Government shall take action in accordance with
law. (Para 52)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-4)

List of Acts/Statutes
 Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector & Inspector (Civil
Police) Service Rules, 2015; Uttar Pradesh Public
Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act,
1998; The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

List of Keywords
Service
Law,
recruitment,
appointment,
advertisement, selection.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant: Atipriya Gautam, Dharmendra
Shukla, Kabeer Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, Vinod
Kumar Mishra

For Respondent: Aishwarya Pratap Singh, CSC

## Text

_Characters 0–39,915 of 56,896. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39915 for what follows._

8 All. Tarun Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
927
disciplinary action for acts of misconduct
against an employee or to transfer such
employee on complaints lies with the
employer. The employer may also adopt
both the said options simultaneously in the
facts of a case. No hard and fast rule can be
laid down which will fetter discretion of the
employer. Each case will have to be judged
on its peculiar facts and circumstances and
it is for the employer to take a decision
after considering all relevant factors. In the
facts of this case it was open to the
respondent bank to transfer the petitioner to
another branch and provide her an
opportunity to perform better in a new
environment. The impugned order of
transfer cannot be faulted with. The transfer
order does not preclude the bank to
examine the veracity of the complaints
against petitioner in an enquiry, or to take
departmental action as per law.

23. Needless to add this Court had not
gone into the veracity of the complaints
against the petitioner or the allegations
made
by
her
against
her
superior
authorities. The findings of this Court are
confined to the legality of the transfer
order. This judgment is without prejudice
to the rights of the petitioner to defend
herself against the complaints, and in the
same breath the order does not fetter the
right of the employer to take out
appropriate
proceedings
against
the
petitioner as per law.

24. Transfer order does not warrant
any interference.

25. In the wake of the preceding
narrative the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 927
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No. 11427 of 2022
Connected with Other Cases

Tarun Chaudhary & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Atipriya
Gautam,
Dharmendra
Shukla,
Kabeer Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, Vinod Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Aishwarya Pratap Singh, C.S.C.

Issue for consideration:
Whether the candidates can be debarred only
on the allegation that they have solved the
question papers in a very short time, which is
humanly impossible and where the whole
exercise of debarment is based upon the CRL
(Candidate Response Log Report, which means
complete video recording of candidates during
the examination period)?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - Once there is no
complaint and no information about the
use of unfair means and nothing has been
recovered from the possession of the
candidates, only suspicion cannot be a
ground to cancel the candidature ruining
their career. (Para 50)

In the present case, for use of unfair means, no
rules have ever been framed, no procedure
regarding cancellation of candidature has ever
been informed to candidates and further, they
have also not been informed that they have to
solve the question paper in a particular time
bound manner. In fact, no compliant or any
adverse information has been received against
any of the petitioners and nothing has been
recovered from their possession. Prior to
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cancellation of the candidature, no opportunity
of hearing or rebuttal was given to petitioners
and the decision has been taken in gross
violation of natural justice based upon
surmises and conjunctures. (Para 51)

The conduct of respondent-authorities are
most irresponsible or unbecoming of
government
servant
rather
they
are
behaving like a group of unlawful persons.
In Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 dated
15.9.2022, stand of the State respondents is
clear that FIR has been lodged against the
petitioners and other candidates and they have
not been permitted to appear in next phase of
the examination and accordingly ousted from
the selection process due to use of unfair
means, whereas in the affidavit of Chairman of
Board,
Lucknow
dated
27.2.2025
entirely
different view has been taken that petitioners
themselves left the examination. Such type of
conduct
of
State-respondents
is
highly
depreciated.
It
is
expected
that
State
Government shall take action in accordance with
law. (Para 52)

Writ petitions allowed. (E-4)

List of Acts/Statutes
 Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector & Inspector (Civil
Police) Service Rules, 2015; Uttar Pradesh Public
Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act,
1998; The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.

List of Keywords
Service
Law,
recruitment,
appointment,
advertisement, selection.

Appearances for Parties
For Appellant: Atipriya Gautam, Dharmendra
Shukla, Kabeer Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, Vinod
Kumar Mishra

For Respondent: Aishwarya Pratap Singh, CSC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, Vijay
Gautam, learned Senior Counsels assisted
by Sri Kabeer Tiwari, Ms. Atipriya
Gautam, Sri Dharmendra Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned Chief
Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1
to 7 and Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8
to 10.

2. Present petition has been filed with
the following prayers:

a) Issue, a writ, order or
direction, in the nature of mandamus,
directing the Respondents, to conduct the
Physical Efficiency Test(PET) of the
petitioners and to declare the petitioners as
selected candidates and appoint them on
the
post
of
Sub-Inspector
in
Civil
Police(Male/Female),
Platoon
Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second
Officer Direct Recruitment-2020-21.

b) Issue, a writ, order or
direction, in the nature of mandamus,
directing the Respondents, to stay the
further selection process and the same
should not be finalized upto the final
decision of present writ petition.

3. Pleadings have been exchanged
between the parties, therefore, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties,
writ petitions are being decided at the
admission stage itself.

4. Brief facts of the case are that
advertisement for recruitment of SubInspector in Civil Police (Male/Female),
Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station
Second Officer Direct Recruitment, 202021 was issued on 24.02.2021. In the
aforesaid
advertisement,
total
9534
vacancies have been advertised (9027
vacancies for Sub-Inspector in Civil Police,
484 vacancies for Platoon Commander in
PAC, 23 vacancies for Fire Station Second
Officer (FSSO) in Fire Service). Thereafter,
8 All. Tarun Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
929
notifications
dated
07.04.2021
&
22.04.2021 have also been issued by which
certain amendments have been made in the
advertisement
dated
24.02.2021.
Vide
notification dated 03.11.2021, syllabus of
online written examination has been
published, according to which online
written examination would be of total 160
objective type questions (40 questions from
each subject) with maximum marks being
400 for all four subjects, namely General
Hindi, General Knowledge (Basic Law and
Constitution), Reasoning & Mental Ability
Test, each question of 2.5 marks and no
negative marking for wrong answer. The
next stage would be Document Verification
and Physical Standard Test (DV/PST) and
the last stage would be Physical Efficiency
Test (PET) having 4.8 Kms. running within
28 minutes for Male and 2.4 Kms. within
16 minutes for Female and thereafter the
final merit list shall be prepared.

5. Being fully qualified, petitioners
applied for the aforesaid posts in their
respective categories along with requisite
fee
pursuant
to
advertisement
dated
24.02.2021. Their applications have been
thoroughly examined and accepted by Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Board,
Lucknow (hereinafter, referred to as,
Board, Lucknow). Online computer based
written examination (CBT) was held from
12.11.2021 upto 02.12.2021 in three shifts,
in thirteen districts at total 92 centres.

6. Answer key of written examination
has been published vide notification dated
10.12.2021 on the official website and
objections were also invited from the
candidates from 10.12.2021 to 16.12.2021.
Thereafter,
vide
notification
dated
14.04.2022, Cut Off marks for online
written examination were released for each
category to appear in the next stage i.e.
Document
Verification
and
Physical
Standard Test (DV/PST). Vide notification
dated
29.04.2022,
list
of
selected
candidates has been issued, who had
qualified in online written examination and
called for Document Verification and
Physical Standard Test (DV/PST). The said
list is having the names of the petitioners
also, as they have cleared the online written
examination.
Thereafter,
selected
candidates have also been issued call letters
to appear in Document Verification and
Physical Standard Test (DV/PST). They all
have appeared in the next phase i.e.
DV/PST in which they have been declared
successful for the last stage i.e. Physical
Efficiency Test (PET). Now, they were
required to appear in the last phase of
examination i.e. Physical Efficiency Test
(PET). Vide notification dated 03.05.2022,
method and list of candidates qualified to
appear for the Physical Efficiency Test
(PET) has been issued for the candidates
who have qualified to appear in that. In this
list too, names of petitioners were included
and accordingly, they have also appeared
for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) at the
scheduled examination centre.

7. Instead of conducting the Physical
Efficiency Test (PET), petitioners have
been alleged for using unfair means and
further, FIR has been lodged against all the
petitioners on the basis of Candidate
Response Log Report (hereinafter, referred
to as, 'CRL'). CRL means complete video
recording
of
candidates
during
the
examination period. Thereafter they were
sent to jail. Hence, present petition.

8. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that no doubt State Government
is
having
authority
to
cancel
the
examination in case of use of unfair means,
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
but such cancellation must be carried out
strictly in accordance with procedure
established by the law. He next submitted
that for cancellation of candidature, there
must exist a statutory rule, which defines
unfair means and specifies the conduct that
qualifies as such and prescribes a procedure
for determining whether a candidates is
engaged in use of unfair means and also
provide safeguard to ensure candidates are
not arbitrarily penalized. He also submitted
that in the present case, respondents have
failed to demonstrate the existence of any
rule defining the term unfair means in the
context of present examination or laying
down of procedure for cancellation of
candidature.

9. Learned Senior Counsel next
submitted that earlier, respondent nos. 2
and 3 have filed counter affidavit dated
15.09.2022 heavily relying upon Appendix3 of Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector &
Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules,
2015 (hereinafter, referred to as, ?Rules,
2015?), which rightly covers the power to
cancel the candidature in case of use of
unfair means, but in a subsequent affidavit
dated 27.02.2025 filed by Chairman,
Board, Lucknow-respondent no. 2, he has
taken entirely different view and stated that
by the first amendment in the Rules, 2015
on 03.12.2015 Appendix-3 has been
withdrawn and ceased to exist w.e.f.
03.12.2015. This fact was not disclosed in
the
earlier
counter
affidavit
dated
15.09.2022, which is an attempt to mislead
the Court regarding the authority to
disqualify the candidates. Exercise of
debarring the petitioners and disqualifying
them has been done by unfettered and
arbitrary discretion of the respondents.

10. He also pointed out that State
Government has not come with clean hands
before the Court as in the counter affidavit
dated 15.09.2022 as well as affidavit dated
27.02.2025,
respondents
have
taken
entirely different stands.

11. He further submitted that the
whole exercise adopted by the respondents
for disqualifying the petitioners is based
upon
CRL,
according
to
which
candidates/petitioners
have
answered
questions at a significantly faster rate
towards
the
latter
portion
of
the
examination in comparison to the earlier
portion. He also submitted that procedure
adopted
by
the
State-respondents
in
arriving at this conclusion is not only
violative of the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of
Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (hereinafter,
referred to as, Act, 1998), but also patently
illegal as it contravenes the terms stipulated
in the Advertisement dated 24.02.2021.

12. He next submitted that Section
2(d) of the Act, 1998 defines unfair means
as follows:

Unauthorized help from any
person directly or indirectly, or from any
material written, recorded, copied, or
printed, in any form whatsoever, or the use
of any unauthorized telephonic, wireless,
electronic or other instrument or gadget.

13.
He
further
submitted
that
allegation levelled against the petitioners
does not fall within the statutory definition
of unfair means.

14. He lastly submitted that during the
course of examination, no complaint has
been made against the petitioners for using
unfair means or any other misconduct from
the examination centre or any other
authority further, no unfair material has
8 All. Tarun Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
931
been recovered from the possession of the
petitioners. No procedure has been adopted
to oust the petitioners from the selection
process and no opportunity of hearing or
rebuttal was given to petitioners before
cancelling their candidature. Further, as per
the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2025,
petitioners have been debarred/ousted from
the selection process based upon unusual
and unbelievable behaviour on the basis of
CRL. The only allegation against the
petitioners is that they have solved the
question paper in a very short time i.e. 15
minutes,
which
is
unusual
and
unbelievable.

15. Learned Chief Standing Counsel
while opposing the submission of learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners could not
dispute the facts that in the counter affidavit
dated 15.09.2022, respondents have taken
stand
that
examination
of
candidates/petitioners has been cancelled
relying upon Appendix-3 of Rules, 2015,
whereas, in the affidavit dated 27.02.2025,
respondent no. 2 has taken entirely different
stand that Appendix-3 of Rules, 2015 has
been withdrawn vide order dated 03.12.2015.
He also could not dispute that before
disqualifying the petitioners, no opportunity
of rebuttal or hearing was given to them and
whole exercise of rejection of candidature has
taken place based upon CRL. He also could
not dispute that no complaint has been
received against the petitioners nor anything
has been recovered from their possession. He
admitted that whole exercise of debarring the
candidates is based upon the CRL and the
only allegation against the petitioners is that
they have solved the question papers in a
very
short
time,
which
is
humanly
impossible.

16. During the course of argument to
decide the issue, this Court has raised five
queries from the State-respondents vide
order dated 18.2.2025. Paragraph 4 of the
said order is being quoted hereinbelow:

4. In light of Rule, there is no
doubt that State Government having
authority to cancel the examination for use
of unfair means, but for cancellation of the
candidature there are certain requirements.
First of all there must have been a Rule
which
provides
the
procedure
for
cancellation of candidature of candidate in
case of use of unfair means. The said Rule
should also contain the definition of unfair
means, conduct of the candidate, which is
treated to be use of unfair means. Secondly,
before cancellation of candidature or
ousting a candidate from selection process,
rule of natural justice has to be followed
and candidates must have been given
opportunity of hearing as well as rebuttal.
Therefore,
respondent
no.1-Additional
Chief Secretary, Home, Govt. of Uttar
Pradesh is directed to file affidavit of
following points:-

(i) He shall inform the date of
framing of Rules in case of use of unfair
means in the light of paragraph 13 of
appendix-3 of Rules, 2015 and annex the
copy of the Rule.

(ii) He shall also inform the
procedure so adopted for cancellation of
candidature or to oust from further
selection process.

(iii) He shall also inform the
Court about the opportunity of hearing or
rebuttal so given to petitioner before
cancellation of their candidature or
ousting them from selection process.

(iv) As per counter affidavit,
petitioners' candidates are ousted from
selection process based upon unusual and
unbelievable behaviour. He shall also
inform as to why information about
unusual and unbelievable behaviour was
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given to candidates which may lead to
cancellation of their candidature.

(v)
Second
ground
for
cancellation
of
candidature
is
that
candidates have solved many questions in
a very short time. He shall inform as to
whether any such information as given to
petitioner to solve the papers in a
particular manner or particular time limit
and violation of that may be resulted in
cancellation of candidature.

(vi) He shall also inform as to
whether respondents have received any
information or complaint with regard to
use of unfair means or any misconduct by
the candidates during the exam period.

17. Pursuant to the aforesaid order,
Chairman of Board, Lucknow-respondent
no. 2 has filed affidavit dated 27.02.2025.
Petitioners have also filed objection dated
02.03.2025 to affidavit dated 27.02.2025.

18. At this stage, learned Senior
Counsel has argued that in Paragraph 6 of
the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022 on
behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3,
respondents have taken specific stand that
Point No. 13 of Appendix 3 of Rules, 2015
provides that in case of use of unfair means
during the course of examination, Board,
Lucknow can cancel the candidature of a
candidate, whereas in Paragraph 6 of the
affidavit dated 27.02.2025 of Chairman of
Board, Lucknow-respondent no. 2, he has
taken a different view and stated that vide
first amendment dated 3.12.2015 in Rules
2015, Appendix 3 of Rule 2015 has been
ousted, therefore, no rules have been
framed in light of Point No. 13 of
Appendix 3 of Rule 2005. Thereafter, vide
government order dated 13.7.2020, seventh
amendment has been made in the Rules,
2015 and Rule 15 Kha was inserted, which
provides that detailed procedure for the
written examination shall be determined by
the Board, Lucknow and the same shall
also be displayed on its website. Not only
this, he also pointed out that Chairman of
Board, Lucknow is talking about the The
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Examination(Prevention of Unfair Means)
Act, 2024(hereinafter, referred to as, Act,
2024),
which
was
promulgated
on
06.08.2024, but the examination was
conducted in the year 2021, therefore, any
definition given in Act, 2024 would not be
applicable to the case of petitioners and
there is nothing to show that the Act, 2024
would be given retrospective effect.

19. Being confronted by the Court,
learned Chief Standing Counsel could not
dispute the submission so raised by learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners at this
stage.

20. I have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records including
writ petition, counter affidavit dated
15.9.2022,
affidavit
dated
27.2.2025,
objection
filed
by
the
petitioners,
advertisement
and
other
relevant
documents.

21. In Paragraph nos. 8(2) & 8(3) of
the Advertisement dated 24.02.2021, there
is provision to cancel the candidature of
candidate and debar the candidate from the
examination, which are being quoted
hereinbelow:

"8(2). अभ्यथी लदवाललया न हो तथा लकसी
न्यायालय द्वारा कभी दलण्डत न हुआ हो।

8(3)-लकसी अनाचार, लकसी महत्वपूणट सूचना को
लिपाने, अलभयोजन/अपरालिक वाद ललम्बत होने, दोष लसद्ध होने,
एक से अलिक जीलवत पत्नी के होने, तथ्यों को गलत प्रस्तुत करने
तथा अभ्यथटन अथवा चयन के सम्बन्ि में लसफाररश करने आलद
8 All. Tarun Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
933
कृत्यों में ललि पाये जाने पर अभ्यथटन लनरस्त करने तथा बोडट की
परीक्षाओं एव चयनों से प्रलतवाररत (Debar) करने का अलिकार
बोडट को होगा।"

22. From perusal of the same, it is
apparently clear that in case of violation of
Paragraph nos. 8(2) and 8(3) of the
Advertisement, Board, Lucknow has right
to cancel the candidature of candidate as
well as debar the candidate from the
examination. Here it is undisputed that
against the petitioners, none of the
allegations
found
mentioned
in
the
Paragraph nos. 8(2) and 8(3) of the
advertisement, therefore, candidature of the
petitioners cannot be cancelled in terms of
Paragraph
8(2)
and
8(3)
of
the
Advertisement.

23. I have perused the Paragraph 6 of
the counter affidavit dated 15.9.2022 and in
fact Paragraph 6 is the crux of the case of
the respondents, which is being quoted
hereinbelow:-

6. That the contents of paragraph
2 of the writ petition are not admitted and
in reply thereto it is most respectfully
submitted that during the Online written
examination of said recruitment process, it
has been found by the Board that the
petitioners succeeded in Online written
examination by using unfair means, as such
on the occasion of physical efficiency test,
F.I.R. has been registered against the
petitioners and other candidates and they
have not been permitted to appear in next
phase of examination, accordingly, they
have been ousted from selection process.
Copy of the status of investigation pursuant
to F.I.R., is being filed herewith and
marked as Annexure-CA-1 to the present
counter affidavit. It is further relevant to
mention here that in this respect in point
No. 13 of Appendix-3, it is specifically
mentioned that during the examination if
any candidate is found using unfair means
then Board could have cancelled his
candidature and decision of the Board in
this respect will be final.

It is further submitted that from
the
comparative
analysis
of
C.R.L
(Candidates Exam day response Log) of the
petitioners and from the C.R.L. Report, it is
evident that the petitioners have used
unfair means in the written examination.
Copy of the C.R.L. report of petitioners
who are 42 in numbers, are being filed
herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-2,
and in order to avoid bulkiness of C.R.L.
chart in respect of all petitioners, only copy
of the C.R.L. Chart relating to only
petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are being filed
herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-2A
to the present counter affidavit. However,
copy of C.R.L. chart relating to rest of the
petitioners shall be produced at the time of
hearing of the writ petition, if so required
by this Hon'ble Court.

It is submitted that from the
C.R.L. review of the petitioner No. 1, it is
transpired as follows :-

(a) In the written examination,
120 minutes was allocated for answering
160
questions
of
Online
written
examination. The petitioner No. 1 Tanu
Chaudhary initially has given answer of
very less questions and by leaving most of
the question she has gone ahead and at that
time, she has not given the answer of
questions.

(b)The Tanu Chaudhary at initial
time of examination has given answer of 20
questions in 75 minutes and after getting
outside unfair aid/means, she has solved
123 questions only in 30 minutes and in
last 15 minutes, she has not given any
answer of the question. From the analysis
of correct answer of 123 questions in 30
minutes, it has been found that she has
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given answer of 4 questions in 1 minute at
the rate of 15 second per question in which
40 questions of numerical and mental
ability were also included.

(c) The petitioner No. 1 has given
correct answer of 35 questions out of 40
questions relating to numerical and mental
ability and she has taken 2 minutes and 55
second in reading and viewing these
questions but at that time, she has not given
any answer. It is submitted that view time
of the candidate is not displayed in the
C.R.L. who has given answer of the
question after understanding and reading it
and in the C.R.L. the view time is included
in the response time meaning thereby that 2
minutes and 55 seconds is only view time of
answer of 35 questions of numerical and
mental ability in which only questions has
been seen and read but the same was not
answered by that time but surprisingly in
reading/understanding and solving 35
questions only 5 minutes and 25 second has
been consumed and accordingly, 9 second
has been taken in solving 1 question
whereas from mathematical analysis, at
least 15 second is consumed in reading and
understanding a question whereas the
petitioner No. 1 has given answer of these
questions in very short time.

(d) It is settled view that answer
of question of mathematic subject comes
after its salvation and in such a short time,
35 questions cannot be solved, from which
it is evident that she has used unfair means
through Electronic devices/technical means
and outside illegal assistances in solving
35 questions whereas the nature and
behavior of the petitioner in solving the
question was found to be abnormal.

(e) It is relevant to mention here
that generally selected candidates has
given answer of 40 questions of numerical
and mental ability in duration of 30 to 60
minutes while the petitioner No,. 1 has
taken only 5 minutes and 43 seconds in
solving aforesaid 40 questions. Which is
not possible for any sharp brain.

(f) It is also relevant to mention
here that, For example one selected
candidate Registration No. SICUP0257894
has taken 36 minutes and 40 seconds in
solving 40 questions of numerical and
mental ability and similarly, another
candidate, registration No. SICUP0483466
has taken 44 minutes and 11 second in
solving 40 questions of numerical and
mental ability and another candidate,
registration No. SICUP0649471 has taken
44 minutes and 52 second in solving 40
questions of numerical and mental ability.
Another selected candidate, Registration
No. SCIUP0658407 has taken 40 minutes
and 30 seconds in solving 40 questions of
numerical and mental ability. Copy of
C.R.L. Report of four selected candidates is
being filed herewith and marked as
Annexure-CA-3 to the present counter
affidavit.

(g) That the petitioner No. 1 in
respect of questions of numerical and
mental ability has taken 05 seconds or less
than this in giving answer of 26 questions,
10 seconds or less than this in giving
answer of 9 questions, 15 second or less
than this in in giving answer of 4 questions
and thus has taken 15 second or excess
than this in giving answer of 01 question in
which time taken in reading, understanding
and solving the question is also included
which is impossible to give answer of
mathematical questions in such a short
time which is evident from C.R.L. of the
petitioner No. 1 which is given as follows :-

Time Breakup( in
seconds)
Count of Numerical
&
Mental
Ability
Questions
01 to 05
26
06 to 10
09
8 All. Tarun Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
935
11 to 15
04
Excess than 15
01
Total
40

Copy of the chart relating to time
taken by 42 petitioners in giving answer of
40 questions prepared on the basis of
C.R.L. of the petitioners, is being filed
herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-4 to
the present counter affidavit.

(h)Apart from petitioner No. 1,
the nature and behavior of rest of 41
petitioners in giving answer of questions is
unnatural and abnormal, which is clear
from the C.R.L. analysis of the petitioners.

(i) That in view of the facts and
circumstances
above,
the
Board
by
exercising its powers vested to it under
rule, has very rightly not permitted to
participate
in
the
next
phase
of
examination of recruitment process in
question
which
was
very
mandatory
requirement to maintain transparency and
fairness of examination.

24. To decide the controversy, this
Court has analysed the response of five
queries
raised
vide
its
order
dated
18.02.2025 in light of affidavit dated
27.02.2025 filed by Chairman of Board,
Lucknow-respondent no. 2.

25. Now coming to the first query
raised by this Court in its order dated
18.2.2025, which is relevant to decide the
controversy, therefore, same is being
quoted hereinbelow:-

(i) He shall inform the date of
framing of Rules in case of use of unfair
means in the light of paragraph 13 of
appendix-3 of Rules, 2015 and annex the
copy of the Rule.

26. In reply of the query raised by the
Court, respondent authorities have given
specific reply in Paragraph 6 of the
affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is quoted
hereinbelow:-

6. That regarding the Query No.
i, it is most respectfully submitted that prior
to the recruitment in question the first
amendment has been made in U.P. Sub
Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rules, 2015 on 03.12.2015. For
kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of
the first amendment in U.P. Sub Inspector
and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules,
2015 dated 03.12.2015 is being annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO.
1 to this affidavit.

By this amendment Appendix-3 of
Rule 2015 has been ousted, therefore no
rules have been framed in light of
paragraph-13 of Appendix-3 of rule-2015.
In
these
rules
even
after
this
by
Government order no. 2/2020/1399/6-Po.-
1-20- 53-2015 dated 13.07.2020 the
Seventh amendment has been made. For
kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of
the Government order no. 2/2020/1399/6Po.-1-20-53-2015 dated 13.07.2020 is
being annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this affidavit.

By
this
amendment
in
rule
15(Kha)
provision
has
been
given
regarding examination, the Note (1) is as
given:

"(1) किकखत परीक्षा केकिए कवस्तृत प्रकक्रया बोडज
द्वारा अविाररत की जायेगी और इसेअपनी वेबसाइट पर प्रदकशजत की
जायेगी"

By
para
8
(3)
of
the
Advertisement
dated
24.02.2021
the
following provision has been made:

"3- ककसी अनाचार, ककसी महत्वपूणज सूचना को
कछपाने, अकभयोजन / अपराकिक वाद िकम्बत होने, दोशकसद्ध होने,
एक से अकिक जीकवत पत्नी के होने, तथ्यों को गित प्रस्तुत करने
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
तथा अभ्यथजन अथवा चयन के सम्बन्ि में कसफाररश करने आकद
कृत्यों में किप्त पाये जाने पर अभ्यथजन कनरस्त करने तथा बोडज की
परीक्षाओं एवं चयनों से प्रकतवाररत (Debar) करने का अकिकार
बोडज को होगा।"

Besides this, detailed instructions
were given to the candidates in their Admit
Card for online examination. For kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of the
instructions given in the Admit Card by the
Recruitment Board is being annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to
this affidavit.

From bare perusal of this the
candidate who falls under use of unfair
means is transparently clear.

The
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means)
Ordinance, 2024 regarding use of unfair
means in recruitment conducted by the
Government of Uttar Pradesh, came into
effect from July, 2024 which was not in
force at the time of the examination in
question. By Section 2 (K) of this Act unfair
means has been defined for the first time
and by Section 4(1) use or indulgence of
unfair means or in connection with any
public examinations or the conduct or
public examinations has been prohibited
and provision has been made to conduct
enquiry for the violation of the prescribed
act by Examination Authority and examinee
have been given opportunity of being
heard. This ordinance is converted into the
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Examination
(Preventions of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 by
the U.P. Act No.8 of 2024

It is important to mention here
that by means of Section 13(1) read with
Section 4 (1) of the act, it has been
provided
that
where
any
examinee
contravenes, or attempt or abets to
contravene the provision of Section (1) of
Section 4, his result of concerned public
examination shall be withheld. For kind
perusal of this Hon'ble court, copy of the
Act is being annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit.

The online examination was held
from 12.11.2021 to 2.12.2021 prior to
enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Public
Examination
(Preventions
of
Unfair
Means) Act, 2024 and earlier there was no
provision to provide opportunity of hearing
to the candidates prior to cancellation of
their candidature on the ground of use of
unfair means.

By order dated 7.11.2024 passed
in Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013 (Tej
Prakash Pathak & others vs. Rajasthan
High Court and others) the following
considerable points have been raised.

(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to
the extant Rules, may devise appropriate
procedure for bringing the recruitment
process to its logical end provided the
procedure so adopted is transparent, nondiscrimination/non arbitrary and has a
rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved.

(5) Extant Rules have statutory
force are binding on the recruiting body
both in terms of procedure and eligibility.
However, where the Rules are non-existent,
or silent, administrative instructions may
fill in the gaps.

It is relevant to mention here that
the petitioners have not alleged any
arbitrariness or discrimination against the
Recruitment
Board.
The
Board
has
conducted the whole process transparently
and judicially.

27. In the affidavit dated 27.02.2025,
they have not disclosed about the framing
of rules with regard to use of unfair means
based upon which candidature has been
cancelled. Further, from perusal of both the
affidavits, it is apparently clear that
respondents have taken different views in
both the affidavits. In the counter affidavit
8 All. Tarun Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
937
dated 15.9.2022, it is their case that they
have relied upon Point No. 13 of the
Appendix 3 of Rules, 2015 for framing of
Rules,
whereas
in
affidavit
dated
27.2.2025, it is their case that Point No. 13
of Appendix 3 of Rules, 2015 was deleted
vide amendment dated 03.12.2015 in
Rules, 2015, therefore, it is an attempt to
mislead the Court. Therefore, it is clear that
no rules have ever been framed. Not only
this, they have admitted that at the time of
Physical Efficiency Test(PET), FIR has
been lodged against the petitioners and
other candidates and they have not been
permitted to appear in next phase of the
examination and accordingly, they have
been ousted from the selection process.

28. They are relying upon certain
provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Public
Examination(Prevention
of
Unfair
Means) Ordinance, 2024, which was
converted into The Uttar Pradesh Public
Examination(Prevention
of
Unfair
Means) Act, 2024 by U.P. Act No. 8 of
2024. Further, once the examination has
taken place in the year 2021 any
provision of the Act, 2024 would not be
applicable as it was not promulgated
with retrospective effect. Relying upon
an Act of 2024 for an examination held
in 2021 shows non application of mind
of respondents and also their mental
bankruptcy.

29. Annexure CA-3 annexed along
with
the
affidavit
dated
27.02.2025
regarding instructions to candidates only
says that there will be no negative marks
for wrong answers and further, other
conditions mentioned in the instruction are
having no relevance with the present
controversy as none of the instructions is
saying to solve the questions in a particular
time frame.

30. In light of facts stated in both the
affidavits,
it
is
established
that
for
cancellation of examination, no rules have
ever been framed and in arbitrary manner,
candidature of the candidates are rejected
and they are also subjected to criminal
proceedings.

31. The second query raised by the
Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, reads as
follows:-

(ii) He shall also inform the
procedure so adopted for cancellation of
candidature or to oust from further
selection process.

32. In reply of the aforesaid query
raised by the Court, respondent authorities
have given specific reply in Paragraph 7 of
the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is
quoted hereinbelow:-

That regarding the Query No.ii, it
is most respectfully submitted that 40
candidates/petitioners of the writ petition
became out of the selection process
automatically due to not participating in
the physical efficiency test hence no
process are initiated to cancel their
candidature. Regarding two petitioners,
namely, Jitesh Kumar and Rajat Chauhan
the Candidate Response Log was examined
by the service provider agency and found
proof regarding use of unfair means. These
candidates
appeared
in
Document
Verification
and
physical
standard
examination but they could not give
satisfactory answer for solving very few
questions unusually and unbelievably in
very short time, which indicates that their
act falls within criminal activity and for
lawful
investigation
of
which
first
information report was lodged and the
Recruitment Board took the decision to
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cancel their candidature. Against the
petitioners, after investigation, chargesheets have been been submitted.

By
order
dated
08.07.2024
passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 335 of
2024 (Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India)
before Hon'ble Apex Court regarding use
of unfair means in the examination and for
sorting such candidates by the analysis the
following point has been discussed:

18 The third aspect on which it is
necessary to have a further disclosure by
the Union Government as well by NTA is
whether it would be feasible, using data
analytics either within the cyber forensic
unit or any other expert agencies within the
government or which may be employed by
the government to identify suspect or
suspicious cases. If this is possible, the
authority shall identify the modalities
which can be followed so as to segregate
the students suspected of using unfair
means from the other students"

Further,
vide
order
dated
02.08.2024 in the same writ petition the
Hon'ble Apex Court again passed the
following remars:

"Third, the Union of India and
NTA were directed to inform the Cou't as to
whether it was feasible to use data
analytics to identify suspicious cases. If
such an approach was found to be feasible,
the parameters used for flagging such
cases (such as abnormal score patterns)
were required to be placed on record.
(Page 11 Para 14)

...Data analysis is a useful tool in
the endeavour to detect malpractice (Page40, Para-72)

.
Consider
the
viability
of
comprehensive CCTV surveillance systems
at all examination centers, including realtime monitoring and recording of all
activities. The aim is to deter and detect
any malpractice or unauthorized activities
and to provide evidence in case of
incidents; (Page-56, Para 106)"

Thus, it is clear that to sort out
candidates,
using
unfair
means,
the
Examination experts of the service provider
agency may use Data Analysis and
Abnormal Score Pattern besides other
means which has been permitted by the
Hon?ble Apex Court. Prior to witholding
result of suspected candidates of NEET no
show cause notice was issued by NTA to
the candidates.

33. From perusal of the same, it is
apparent that the stand of respondents is
that 40 petitioners/candidates of the present
writ petition became out of the selection
process
automatically
due
to
not
participating in Physical Efficiency Test,
hence no process has been initiated to
cancel their candidature. Being not satisfied
with the preliminary enquiry, FIR has been
lodged and Board, Lucknow took decision
to cancel their candidature. It is also stated
that every action has been taken in light of
CRL of the service provider agency using
data analysis and abnormal score pattern.

34. It is very surprising that in
Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated
15.9.2022, they have admitted that FIR has
been lodged against the petitioners and
other candidates and they have not been
permitted to appear in the next phase of the
examination.