Similarity In Wrong Answers Or Regional Concentration Of Successful Candidates Not Proof Of Exam Scam: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has dismissed a plea seeking cancellation of the entire recruitment process conducted pursuant to Advertisement Haryana Senior Assistant-cum-Inspector, holding that mere similarity in incorrect answers, regional concentration of successful candidates, or post-result dissatisfaction of unsuccessful candidates cannot justify quashing a recruitment process in the absence of cogent evidence of systemic fraud.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "the recruitment process does not suffer from any systemic malaise that would justify its cancellation. The allegations raised by the petitioners have already been thoroughly investigated and rejected by the Inquiry Officer being devoid of any merit."

The Court refused to interfere with the selection process for 184 posts of Senior Assistant-cum-Inspector, including the written examination held on 28 January 2024, the result declared on 12 August 2024, and the subsequent typing test conducted in December 2025.

The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates in the recruitment process, alleged large-scale irregularities including paper leakage, mass copying, coordinated filling of OMR sheets, and collusion between candidates and officials. They sought quashing of the entire selection process, publication of the Judicial Inquiry Report, registration of an FIR, and initiation of criminal and disciplinary proceedings against officials and selected candidates.

Following complaints and protests, the State had ordered a judicial inquiry by a retired Judge of the High Court, who submitted a report dated 24 June 2025. During the hearing, the State produced the inquiry report in a sealed cover, which was opened and taken on record by the Court.

The petitioners contended that OMR answer sheets of the top rank-holders were circulated on social media platforms like Telegram, revealing strikingly identical wrong answers

Out of the top candidates, 17 belonged to the same district, allegedly indicating organised cheating.

The toppers had poor performance in earlier examinations and could not have improved drastically in a short span and answer sheets were allegedly filled in a coordinated manner after initially being left blank.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations involved disputed questions of fact already examined in detail during the judicial inquiry and out of 27,764 candidates, only 45 candidates were alleged to show similarity in wrong answers, which could reasonably be attributed to common preparation material or similar aptitude.

After perusing the inquiry report and hearing the parties, the Court held that the allegations raised by the petitioners were based on conjectures and surmises and did not meet the high threshold required for judicial interference in recruitment matters.

The Court noted that the judicial inquiry had comprehensively examined allegations relating to regional concentration of candidates and [ast academic performance, age and familial relationships, identical incorrect answers.

The Inquiry Officer found no evidence of collusion, clustering of seating arrangements, or coordinated malpractice. Importantly, the forensic expert categorically ruled out common authorship of OMR sheets.

The Court observed that objective-type examinations often show convergence in responses due to common preparation strategies, which by itself cannot establish cheating.

"The inquiry also revealed that only 02 candidates among the top 50 belonged to the same family, however, both possessed verifiable academic credentials. It was observed that there is no legal prohibition against relatives appearing in the same examination or qualifying it. Mere existence of a filial relationship alone cannot raise an inference of favouritism in absence of any evidence to that effect," it added.

Regarding allegations of wrong answers the Court said, "the forensic expert categorically ruled out common authorship of any two OMR sheets and found no evidence of impersonation or mass fabrication. The Inquiry Officer explained that the similarity in wrong answers can naturally arise due to common preparation material, elimination strategies or exam stress, and does not, by itself, establish collusion or cheating. In absence of proof of tampering, usage of communication devices, or access to answer keys, the allegation was found to be speculative and legally unsustainable."

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vanshika Yadav, the Court reiterated that cancellation of an examination is an extreme and disproportionate step, permissible only where there is evidence of a systemic taint making it impossible to segregate the tainted from the untainted.

The Court distinguished the present case from Tanvi Sarwal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others' 2015(6) SCC 573l and Sachin Kumar, noting that unlike those cases, there was no evidence of impersonation, technological manipulation, prior circulation of question papers, or coordinated seating arrangements.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Vanshika Yadav, the Court reiterated that cancellation of an examination is an extreme and disproportionate step, permissible only where there is evidence of a systemic taint making it impossible to segregate the tainted from the untainted.

The Court distinguished the present case from Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar, noting that unlike those cases, there was no evidence of impersonation, technological manipulation, prior circulation of question papers, or coordinated seating arrangements.

Observing that, "recruitment process does not suffer from any systemic malaise that would justify its cancellation," the Court rejected the plea.

Dr. Rau P.S. Girwar, Advocate, Ms. Archana Rau, Advocate and Ms. K.T. Rau, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.

 Title: Akashdeep Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and others

 Click here to read order