Authorities Must Establish Unfair Means Against Each Candidate, Can't Apply 'One Size Fits All' Approach: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that when authorities choose to cancel the candidature and penalise individual candidates for allegedly adopting unfair means in an examination, they must establish the allegation against each candidate individually and cannot adopt a “one size fits all” approach.
The Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar made the observation while dismissing a plea filed by Staff Selection Commission (SSC) challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had set aside the cancellation of one Himanshi's candidature in the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination, 2019, along with her seven-year debarment from appearing in SSC examinations.
The Court noted that while judicial review of decisions taken by expert committees in unfair-means cases requires restraint, it is not completely barred.
“There is a rarefied stratosphere of cases” it said, where it is not possible to sustain the decision taken against the candidate.
For context, Himanshi appeared for Tier-I of the SSC CHSL 2019 exam and secured 199.21 normalised marks out of 200 and subsequently cleared Tier-II and Tier-III. Her result was later withheld along with those of other candidates suspected of using unfair means.
SSC eventually cancelled her candidature and debarred her from appearing in exams for seven years, alleging that she had shifted from her allotted terminal to a compromised terminal and used unfair means.
The Commission argued that while she attempted only 15 questions on her initially allotted terminal, she attempted the remaining questions on the terminal to which she was shifted, answering them at a significantly faster pace.
The High Court however found a significant discrepancy in the material relied upon by the SSC, inasmuch as the MAC address of the terminal to which Himanshi had been shifted was not among the identified compromised terminals.
“This single factor, by itself, is sufficient to discredit the finding that Himanshi had resorted to unfair means,” the Court held.
It also rejected the suggestion that Himanshi's ability to answer questions correctly at a faster pace after being shifted to another terminal could itself establish unfair means.
It noted that more than 44,000 candidates had been demapped and that there was no material to establish that Himanshi's original terminal was functioning satisfactorily.
“If the initial terminal was in fact defective, one cannot compare the performance of the candidate on that terminal with the performance of the candidate on a properly working terminal…One cannot be penalised for performing well,” the Court said.
It ultimately held that the finding of unfair means and the consequent cancellation of candidature and seven-year debarment were unsustainable.
Before parting, the Court added,
“A “one size fits all” approach, in such a case, would be totally contrary to law. The authorities would have to establish, in respect of each of the allegedly delinquent candidates, that she, or he, employed unfair means. The Court, too, would have to examine, in the case of each candidate, whether the view of the Committee, and the consequent action taken against the candidate, is justified.”
Appearance: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Muhammad Aamir Khan, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. K.C. Mittal with Mr. Yugansh Mittal, Mr. Pulkit Jain and Mr. Keshav Poonia, Advs. for Respondents
Case title: Union Of India & Ors. v. Himanshi & 34 Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 15273/2025