Background Facts

An advertisement for the post of Chief Law Assistant under the 60% Departmental Promotion quota in the N.F. Railway was issued. Five candidates had appeared for it. The written test was held, and the petitioners were declared successful. However, before the viva voce could be conducted, one candidate raised an objection before the Central Administrative Tribunal. He claimed that the answer keys were not published before the result declaration. Consequently, the Railways released the answer keys and later revised them.

Therefore, the earlier result was cancelled and re-evaluation was ordered. Even after re-evaluation, the Railways decided to cancel the entire examination process. It was cited that there were irregularities such as variation in handwriting and alignment issues noticed in the answer papers of two candidates.

Aggrieved by the cancellation, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their Original Application. Hence, the petitioners filed the writ petition before the Gauhati High Court.

It was argued by the petitioners that the cancellation of the entire examination process was arbitrary and unreasonable. It was submitted that all major defects like the non-publication of answer keys, wrong answer keys, and overwriting issues had already been cured by re-evaluation.

It was further argued that cancelling the entire process only because of suspicion over two candidates, was not a good option, rather, it was waste of public money. Further the petitioners were denied the fair chance of promotion which they had rightfully earned through their hard work. It was further argued that the tainted candidates should have been removed rather than cancelling the entire examination.

On the other hand, it was argued by the Railways that suspicion was raised by the Re-evaluating Officer that there was variation in the handwriting of two of the candidates and difference in the alignment between the original and duplicate answer papers. This defect was not likely to be rectified even on re-evaluation. Therefore, the entire examination was cancelled.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Court that the written examination was held and the results were declared. However, the results had to be re-evaluated as one of the candidates had objected that the answer keys were not published before the declaration of the result. This led to re- evaluation. However, the defect were completely remedied.

The judgment in Sachin Kumar Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors. was relied upon wherein it was held that whenever it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices and the recruiting/examination taking body does not do so, then it would be unfair to the diligent applicants who ought not to be subjected to the consequences of cancellation of the entire process. This would be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India because in that event unequals would be treated equally.

It was held by the Division Bench that only in extraordinary fact situations where the examination in question is vitiated, the entire examination process ought to be cancelled.

Further the case of Vanshika Yadav Vs Union of India & Ors. was relied upon wherein it was held that the cancellation of an examination, either for the purposes of gaining admission to any professional or other courses or for the purposes of recruitment to Government posts, is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the examination is found to be compromised at a systemic level. An examination can be cancelled only if it is not possible to separate the tainted candidates from untainted ones.

It was further held by the Division Bench that the two suspicious candidates could easily have been segregated from the rest of the candidates and the examination process should have been taken to a logical/final conclusion. Further, that the decision of the respondents and of the Tribunal was not fair, reasonable, well-balanced or harmonious.

Consequently, the Tribunal's judgment was set aside by the Division Bench. Further, the respondents were directed to complete the examination process after segregating the cases of the two suspicious candidates.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Shri Ranjeet Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No. : WP(C) No.516 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioners : H.K. Das, Sr. Advocate, assisted by N.K. Sarma,

Counsel for the Respondents : H. Gupta, Central Government Counsel