W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 1 of 62

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 30

th

May, 2025

+ W.P.(C) 15036/2023 and CM APPL. 3183/2025

HEMANT SHARAWAT & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. Pradeep

Kumar, Ms. Kritika Matta, Mr. Avinash Kumar,

Mr. Nikhil Pawar, Ms. Ranya Rose and Mr.

Shubham Bahl, Advocates

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik

Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Mr. Neetish

Pachauri, Advocates for University of Delhi.

Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava and Mr. Alekshendra

Sharma, Advocates for NTA.

+ W.P.(C) 73/2024 and CM APPL. 285/2024

RINKU & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocate

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik

Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Mr. Neetish

Pachauri, Advocates for University of Delhi.

+ W.P.(C) 581/2024

DEEPAK & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Aditya Hooda, Advocate

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik

Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Mr. Neetish

Pachauri, Advocates for University of Delhi.

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 2 of 62

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Pragya

Bhushan, Ms. Tarandeep Singh, Mr. Vilakshana

Dayma and Mr. Anand Singh, Advocates for NTA.

+ W.P.(C) 4368/2024

PARDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner

Through: None

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik

Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Mr. Neetish

Pachauri, Advocates for University of Delhi.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Pragya

Bhushan, Ms. Tarandeep Singh, Mr. Vilakshana

Dayma and Mr. Anand Singh, Advocates for NTA.

+ W.P.(C) 582/2024

MOHIT & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Aditya Hooda, Advocate

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik

Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Mr. Neetish

Pachauri, Advocates for University of Delhi.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Pragya

Bhushan, Ms. Tarandeep Singh, Mr. Vilakshana

Dayma and Mr. Anand Singh, Advocates for NTA.

+ W.P.(C) 1363/2024

CHANDAN KUMAR AND ORS .....Petitioners

Through: Ms. Latika Choudhary, Advocate

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 3 of 62

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik

Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Mr. Neetish

Pachauri, Advocates for University of Delhi.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Pragya

Bhushan, Ms. Tarandeep Singh, Mr. Vilakshana

Dayma and Mr. Anand Singh, Advocates for NTA.

+ W.P.(C) 3661/2024

KRISHAN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Dushyant Bhargava, Mr. Pawan

Mehta, Ms. Lubna Akhtar and Ms. Kavita,

Advocates

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik

Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Mr. Neetish

Pachauri, Advocates for University of Delhi.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Pragya

Bhushan, Ms. Tarandeep Singh, Mr. Vilakshana

Dayma and Mr. Anand Singh, Advocates for NTA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. Writ petitions bearing W.P. (C) Nos. 581/2024, 582/2024 and

4368/2024 have been filed laying a challenge to Notifications dated

25.08.2023 and 29.08.2023 issued by University of Delhi (hereinafter

referred to as ‘University’) in respect of appointments to the post of

Laboratory Attendant (Post Code: P0103) as also for a direction to the

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 4 of 62

University to permit the Petitioners to join service with all consequential

benefits. In W.P. (C) Nos.15036/2023, 1363/2024 and 3661/2024 similar

reliefs are sought for the post of Library Attendant (Post Code: P0101). W.P.

(C) No. 73/2024 pertains to selection to the posts of Assistant (Post Code:

P0410) and Junior Assistant (Store) (Post Code: P0203). Since all the writ

petitions relate to the same advertisement and selection process and involve

the same questions of law, they were heard together with the consent of the

parties and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts to the extent necessary and averred in the writ petitions are that

an advertisement bearing No. Estab.IV/290/2021 was issued by the

University in February, 2021 for filling up vacancies in 51 different non-

teaching posts in the University. Application forms were to be submitted

online from 23.02.2021 to 16.03.2021 upto 23:50 hours and fees was to be

paid by 17.03.2021 upto 23:50 hours. Petitioners in the different writ

petitions applied for posts of Laboratory Attendant, Library Attendant,

Assistant and Junior Assistant (Store), respectively. As per Advertisement-

cum-‘Information Brochure & Guidelines for filling of Online Application

form for recruitment of Non-Teaching Positions in Delhi University’, the

written examination was to be conducted by National Testing Agency

(‘NTA’). The eligibility criteria and Scheme of Examination for the posts of

Laboratory Attendant, Library Attendant, Assistant and Junior Assistant

(Store), were as follows:-

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

“47. LIBRARY ATTENDANT (Post Code: P0101)

Pay as per Level 01

Essential:

1. Passed 10th or equivalent examination from any State Education Board

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 5 of 62

or Government recognized Institution.

2. Certificate in Library Science/Library & Information Science from a

recognized Institution.

Desirable:

Computer as a subject at Secondary level or Basic course in Computers

from any Institution.

Age Limit: 30 Years”

“49. LABORATORY ATTENDANT (Post Code: P0103)

Pay as per Level 01

Essential:

Should have passed 10th or an equivalent examination with science

subjects from recognized board.

Age Limit: 30 Years”

“37. ASSISTANT(Post Code: P0410)

Pay as per Level 04

Essential:

A Graduate from a recognized University in any discipline with good

working knowledge of computers.

Age Limit: 30 Years”

“45. JUNIOR ASSISTANT (STORE) (Post Code: P0203)

Pay as per Level 02

Essential:

1. A Senior Secondary School Certificate (10+2) or its equivalent

qualification from a recognized Board/University/Institution.

2. At least 2 years of experience in handling large scale engineering stores

and equipment in government/semi-government body/reputed commercial

establishment.

3. Having a typing speed of 35 w.p.m. in English Typewriting through

computer.

Desirable:

1. Degree/Diploma in materials management.

2. ITI Certificate in Civil/Electrical/Electronics.

Age Limit: 27 Years”

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 6 of 62

SCHEME OF EXAMINATION

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 7 of 62

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 8 of 62

W.P. (C) Nos. 581/2024, 582/2024 and 4368/2024 (for the post of

Laboratory Attendant)

W.P. (C) Nos.15036/2023, 1363/2024 and 3661/2024 (for the post of

Library Attendant)

3. Being qualified and eligible, Petitioners applied for the two posts

respectively and qualified the written examination conducted by NTA at the

allotted centres. On 04.07.2023, NTA published the list of selected

candidates. A list of 151 selected candidates in the order of merit was

published for the post of Laboratory Attendant and for the post of Library

Attendant, 108 candidates were selected.

4. It is averred that on 18.08.2023, University published a list of

candidates to whom offer of appointment were issued on the basis of their

final selection in the written examination and they were to join within 15

days. Since many Petitioners were living in far-flung parts of the country, it

took 5-7 days to receive offer letters and only 9 persons in the category of

Laboratory Attendant and 15 persons in the category of Library Attendant

reported by 24.08.2023.

5. It is averred that on 25.08.2023, without any reason or basis,

University issued the impugned Notification putting on hold the joining of

the candidates, with the approval of the Competent Authority. By a further

Notification dated 29.08.2023, University notified that matter of selection of

candidates to whom offer of appointment were issued vide letters dated

18.08.2023, was under examination and therefore, University had decided to

put the joining of all the candidates on hold, including of those who had

reported. Candidates were advised to check the University website regularly

for further updates in this regard. No reason was spelt out even in this

Notification as to why the joining process was put on hold. Many of the

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 9 of 62

candidates had by this time resigned from their existing jobs or received

NOCs from previous employers and/or had become over age.

6. Aggrieved by the unjust and arbitrary action of the University, some

of the Petitioners preferred representations to the University, but seeing no

positive outcome, these petitions were filed.

COMMON CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS :

7. Petitioners were eligible and duly qualified for the posts and on

clearing the written examination on their own merit, they were offered

appointments. There was no justifiable and plausible reason for placing the

joining of the Petitioners on hold in the absence of any complaint with

regard to the selection process. The impugned Notifications do not spell out

a single reason which prompted the University to place the process under

examination. Having taken an erroneous decision, University attempted to

create material by constituting Committees to justify the said decision by a

process of reverse engineering. Even before this Court, no material is placed

which even remotely points to the alleged unfair means used by the

Petitioners during the examination.

8. Admittedly, only 9 candidates had reported for joining in the category

of Laboratory Attendant and 15 candidates in the category of Library

Attendant when the impugned Notifications were issued at the initial stage.

The justification given by the University in the affidavits filed before this

Court is that informal interaction was held with these candidates and during

the interaction, it was noticed that their competency did not match the high

marks scored by them in the written examination, raising a suspicion of use

of unfair means and thus the Competent Authority decided to put the process

on hold. Till date, it is not disclosed as to who were the officials involved in

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 10 of 62

the informal interaction and what was the nature of questions asked to test

the knowledge, competency or intellect of these few candidates. In any

event, neither the Scheme of Examination nor any Rules or Regulations of

the University, permitted the University to have an informal interaction with

the selected candidates to assess their knowledge or competency, as a

somewhat second tier of selection process. This was clearly a motivated

action to oust the selected candidates at the instance of the employees who

were working on contract basis against these posts and were insecure of

losing their jobs pursuant to regular appointments being made.

9. From the affidavits filed by the University, it comes forth that a

Committee constituted on 06.04.2023 for the purpose of providing

information about additional credits for employees working on contract was

tasked to look into the matter of processing of results vide letter dated

08.09.2023, in light of some indications of use of unfair means. The

Committee gave its report in 2023 on 17.10.2023 (‘2023 Report’) and

recommended that candidates who had used unfair means be not allowed to

join and NTA/University should take punitive action. The second

Committee gave its report in 2024 (‘2024 Report’) concluding that the

recruitment examination for both the posts was compromised and use of

unfair means was established. It was recommended that the recruitment

process and consequent appointments be quashed and process be started

afresh. The conclusions by the Committees are erroneous and without actual

proof of use of unfair means. Irrelevant considerations have gone into the

decision making process such as: visible pattern indicating that toppers of

the merit lists were from some specific centres; some candidates with marks

in the range of 33-50% in Classes X and XII have scored more than 90% in

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 11 of 62

the written test conducted by NTA; more than 100 candidates secured above

90% marks with 20 candidates obtaining over 95%, which was impossible

without use of unfair means since the marking scheme included negative

marking and the questions were from a wide range of subjects.

10. None of these factors can lead to a conclusion that the exam was

compromised, especially in the absence of iota of evidence showing that

unfair means were adopted. There can be infinite number of reasons for

selection of more candidates from certain centres, such as higher number of

candidates taking examination in such centres as a matter of sheer co-

incidence or because certain centres may be large to accommodate

thousands of candidates whereas smaller centres may have a capacity of 50

or even less. This is not a peculiar phenomenon as in many other

competitive examinations also, higher number of selected candidates are

invariably seen either in one centre or in one urban area compared to another

centre or rural area, especially where the urban areas are a hub of coaching

centres. Invariably, students attending a particular coaching centre tend to

fill forms at the same time and are allotted the same centre. In any event, in

the present case, candidates were only required to select 03 preferred cities

while filling up the forms and not examination centres, which were allocated

by NTA, a neutral body, with no role of the candidates in making this

choice. In fact, a lot of selected candidates were not allotted the examination

centre in any of the 03 preferred cities. This could also be merely due to

more meritorious candidates appearing in the exam in some centres.

11. The alleged suspicion of the University arising from the fact that

candidates have scored higher marks despite negative marking, is

completely misplaced. In various other examinations, candidates have

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 12 of 62

scored 100% despite negative marking and this per se cannot lead to a

conclusion that unfair means were used, in the absence of cogent and

sufficient material to support this theory. Illustratively, the cut-off for the

post of Forest Guard examination conducted by GNCTD in 2022 was 200

out of 200 for General Category. The top 3 successful candidates for the

post of Canteen Attendant in the examination conducted by SSC in 2024 had

scored higher than 95% marks and significantly, in both the examinations,

the marking scheme included negative marking.

12. To support its plea of use of unfair means, University has also taken a

position that there was 80% similarity in the answer choices inasmuch as not

only the correct options but even the incorrect options of selected candidates

at suspected centres matched, even though they were not from the difficult

portions of the examination. These allegations are purely based on

presumptions and conjectures arising from analysis of selective data

containing responses of few selected candidates from few centres, which

would invariably result in this pattern in most exams. This kind of

methodology of ex post facto analysis of correct and incorrect answers was

condemned by the Division Bench of this Court in Staff Selection

Commission and Another v. Sudesh, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7534,

upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein the

Tribunal observed that show cause notices did not indicate details of

malpractices committed by the candidates or the nature of copying indulged

in as also the method or modus operandi adopted in the alleged copying.

Tribunal had also held that in the absence of details of alleged malpractices

committed by the candidates, the mere ipse dixit of the Staff Selection

Commission that there was incontrovertible and reliable evidence, which

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 13 of 62

had emerged upon post-examination scrutiny and analysis by outside

experts, was insufficient. In the instant case, the 2024 Report is predicated

on the analysis of the response sheets of the selected candidates through

three methods and conclusions were drawn on probabilities, without a

whisper on the unfair means that the candidates adopted at the centres. It

was imperative for the University to prove the unfair means adopted in light

of the stand of NTA that there was absolutely no breach of the security

protocols involving frisking, installation of CCTV cameras, jammers etc.

13. It is preposterous for the University to contend that a candidate who

does not secure high percentage in Classes X and XII or is not highly

qualified can never perform well in any competitive examination and score

high marks. It is not unknown that many students while studying for Classes

X and XII Board examinations focus more on preparing for competitive

examinations and it is also not unprecedented that many students with

average marks in school, do exceptionally well in the competitive

examination. As for educational qualifications, the advertisement, which is

based on the recruitment rules of the posts, stipulated the minimum

eligibility qualifications as 10

th

Class pass, which the Petitioners possess.

The level of the questions in the examination was in keeping with the

prescribed qualification and thus it cannot be a matter of surprise that some

candidates scored high marks. In fact, as a matter of record, many

Petitioners are Graduates or even Post-Graduates. Documents on record

show that many Petitioners appeared in other competitive examinations

conducted by NTPC, SSC, DSSSB, CET as also the Delhi University and

were successful in some, which is a pointer to their high calibre, intellect

and competency, contrary to the perception of the University.

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 14 of 62

14. There is no material, either before this Court or before the two

Committees tasked to look into the allegations of unfair means, which

evidences that unfair means were used in the centres. Indisputably, no

unsuccessful candidate or third party made any complaint that there were

any malpractices/copying/cheating/leakage of question paper in the present

examination, leave alone at a systemic level. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of

India and Others, (2024) 9 SCC 743, the Supreme Court has delineated the

following tests for determining the propriety of cancelling the examination:

(a) whether the alleged breach took place at a systemic level; (b) whether the

breach is of a nature which affected the integrity of the entire examination

process; and (c) whether it is possible to segregate the beneficiaries of the

fraud from the untainted students.

15. University is unable to show any breach of examination protocol at a

systemic level and to the contrary, NTA’s stand fortifies the position that

there was no compromise with the integrity of the examination. NTA has in

no uncertain terms stated that there was no breach in security protocols

during the conduct of examination. It has brought forth that: (a) question

paper preparation and storage was done in a very secured manner;

(b) randomisation of candidates was done during scheduling at examination

centres; (c) randomisation of questions appearing on the screen of the

candidates was ensured; (d) independent observers were deployed by NTA;

CCTV cameras and jammers were installed and were functional;

(e) multilevel biometric checks were done; (f) candidates were duly frisked;

(g) CCTV control rooms were set up to get live feeds from exam centres;

(h) virtual observers were deployed; (i) deployment of invigilators was

ensured in high numbers; (j) responses of candidates were transferred by

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 15 of 62

secured means from examination centres to NTA; and (k) result validation

was done by an independent third party. With such stringent measures in

place, there was no scope of any candidate using an unfair mean and which

is why there was no complaint even from unsuccessful candidates, a regular

feature in almost every competitive examination. University’s case has its

basis only in conjectures, presumptions and probabilities and is wholly

misconceived. In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others,

(2009) 2 SCC 570, the Supreme Court held that suspicion or presumption

cannot take the place of proof, even in a departmental inquiry, where an

employee is facing a charge sheet.

16. During the course of hearing before this Court, University has been

improving its stand by filing affidavits after affidavits, with a view to justify

the unjust and unfair decision. In the first affidavit dated 21.03.2024, filed

by the University, there was not a whisper of any suspicion that unfair

means were used by candidates. The affidavit only refers to the power of the

University to withdraw the offer of appointment at any stage, if any

discrepancy is noted. Reference is made to the contents of the offer letters

stating that the appointment was provisional and subject to further scrutiny

by the University. In the second affidavit dated 22.07.2024, the stand in

paragraph 10 is that when candidates reported for verification of records,

certain issues were noted, which raised a suspicion of use of unfair means

since the competency of the selected candidates judged on informal

interaction by some officials did not match their respective scores in the

written examination. It was stated that a Committee tasked to look into the

issue of use of unfair means had on scrutiny of available data given an

observation that there was concentration of toppers in few centres; non-

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 16 of 62

selection of candidates from majority of the centres; nil or minimal

representation from bigger States; non-appearance of names of candidates in

the select list from major part of the country; and a wide gap between the

knowledge of the candidates and their scores in Class X or XII and the

marks scored in the examination. This affidavit was a marked improvement

over the first affidavit dated 21.03.2024 in which there was absolutely no

mention of the 2023 Report, which had given its recommendations by this

time and possibly with which even the University was not satisfied.

17. Moreover, in the 2023 Report while there is an observation in para

4.1(i) that a visible pattern was noted that candidates in the select list were

from few specific centres, there is no reference to the said specific centres.

In para 4.3, the Committee clearly stated that details of the candidates such

as their admit cards, centres, number of candidates in a centre, qualifications

etc. were not provided. In the absence of all these details and on the basis of

interaction with a miniscule number of candidates who had reported, it is not

understood how the Committee came to a conclusion of a visible pattern in

some centres and consequently a conclusion that unfair means were used in

specific centres. While NTA has completely discredited the reports of the

Committees that there was any malpractice in any centre, University has

been unable to dent the stand of NTA.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF UNIVERSITY:

18. Executive Council of the University in its meeting dated 21.10.2020

decided to approach NTA for conduct of computer based written tests for

recruitment of non-teaching posts of the University and after consent of

NTA, University decided to engage the agency. NTA advertised the vacant

posts vide Advertisement dated 23.02.2021 followed by subsequent

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 17 of 62

corrigenda. Written test for post of Library Attendant was scheduled for

16.03.2023 and rescheduled to 20.03.2023 while that of Laboratory

Attendant was scheduled for 18.03.2023. The entire process was carried out

by NTA which included setting of question papers, selection of centres,

deputing invigilators, providing computers, logistic support etc. with no

intervention by the University. After conduct of written tests, on 18.04.2023,

NTA sought the data of candidates engaged on contract/temporary/ad hoc

basis to finalise the result, as additional marks were to be awarded in terms

of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1007-1008/2021.

Required data was provided by the University and NTA was requested to

expedite the results, which shows their bona fide attempt to finalise the

result at the earliest.

19. As per NTA’s data, 7058 candidates had applied, out of which 2655

appeared in the written test and list of 108 candidates, selected for the post

of Library Attendant was provided by NTA. Similarly, list of 151 candidates

selected for post of Laboratory Attendant was also sent. However, details of

academic qualifications and other particulars including contact details of the

candidates etc. were not provided and University vide e-mail dated

10.07.2023 sought these details.

20. After lot of chasing up, NTA provided minimal data on 19.07.2023,

pertaining to candidates selected in the merit list and when University

compared each candidate’s particulars with confirmation sheet provided by

NTA, it emerged that few candidates placed in the merit list under

unreserved category were placed in their reserved category, as a result of

which candidates who were declared successful in the reserved categories

could not find place in the final merit select list. After compiling the merit

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 18 of 62

list, a Notification was issued by the University on 18.08.2023 with the

approval of the Competent Authority and offers of appointment were sent to

147 candidates in the category of Laboratory Attendant and 108 candidates

in the category of Library Attendant, through speed post.

21. Laboratory Attendants who were offered appointments were to be

posted in different departments of the University for deployment in different

laboratories and in order to understand their interests and aptitude for

deciding their postings, officials of the University informally interacted with

the candidates who reported on 21.08.2023. This interaction was also

necessitated for the reason that the offer letters were issued without

documentary evidence of their educational credentials, dates of birth etc.

Informal interaction revealed a huge gap in the basic understanding and

knowledge of these candidates in the respective fields vis-à-vis their

performance in the written test, wherein they had obtained high scores i.e.

more than 90%. On further scrutiny of the documents provided at the time of

joining, it was also observed that performance of these candidates in Classes

X and XII was average or below average and there was a substantial time

gap between the period when their schooling ended and the dates of written

tests. This raised a serious apprehension that unfair means were used to

obtain high scores. The matter was brought to the notice of senior officials

of the University and looking at the gravity of the situation, the Vice

Chancellor directed that joining of the candidates be put on hold and thus

Notification was issued to this effect on 25.08.2023.

22. University of Delhi is a Public Funded Premier Central Educational

Institution and is duty bound to recruit employees in a fair and transparent

manner, keeping intact the highest standards of education. Laboratory and

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 19 of 62

Library Attendants interact with and assist the students on regular basis in

the colleges and if appointed, would have been employed at least for the

next three decades. In these circumstances, it was imperative that their

selection is on merit and fair and without recourse to using unfair means.

23. Later, with the approval of the Competent Authority, another

Notification was issued on 29.08.2023 and uploaded on the University’s

website for wider publicity, intimating that University had decided to put on

hold joining of all the candidates including those who had reported in the

University and the candidates were advised to check the University website

regularly for further updates in this regard.

24. Petitioners cannot claim a vested right to appointment merely on the

basis of offer letters. Clause 12 of Section ‘E’ of the Advertisement-cum-

‘Information Brochure & Guidelines for filling of Online Application form

for recruitment of Non-Teaching Positions in Delhi University’, dealing with

filling of online application forms clearly notified that in case of any

inadvertent mistake in the process of selection, which may be detected at

any stage, even after issuing an appointment letter, University will have the

right to modify/withdraw/cancel any communication made to the applicant.

Therefore, once it was found that candidates had used unfair means in the

examination, University was well within its right to put on hold the joining

of the candidates till the issues were resolved.

25. Committee constituted on 06.04.2023 for the purpose of providing

information about additional credits to the employees working on contract,

was asked to look into the issue of unfair means. Since NTA did not provide

enough data regarding the categories, eligibility, centres of examination etc.

of the candidates, information was collected from the selected candidates

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 20 of 62

and collated by the Committee. Preliminary report of 2023 Committee

revealed a visible pattern indicating that candidates in the select list and

toppers of the merit list were from some specific centres and candidates

scoring 33-50% marks in Classes X and XII scored more than 90% in the

written examination. Committee also found that in the merit list more than

100 candidates scored more than 90% with almost 20 candidates scoring

95%, which was impossible, considering that the scheme of examination

involved negative marking with questions from wide range of subjects.

Cumulatively, these findings raised a suspicion of use of unfair means

during the written test, which would in turn lead to the integrity of the

examination being compromised.

26. NTA was the examination conducting agency and therefore, these

observations of the Committee were forwarded to NTA, however, response

of NTA vide letter dated 26.10.2023 was very cursory and without even

adverting to the data furnished by the University, NTA denied the use of

unfair means in the examination in a mechanical manner by merely harping

that all standard procedures and protocols were followed. NTA’s

communication disclosed that examination was conducted across 87 centres

on pan India basis. Finding the response of NTA unsatisfactory, University

constituted another Committee vide Notification dated 28.11.2023 and

sought data from NTA vide e-mail dated 09.02.2024, which was provided as

a link vide e-mail dated 16.08.2024 including question papers, response

sheets of candidates, exam centre details and confirmation page of qualified

candidates. The link could be accessed only on 22.08.2024 and on receipt of

the data and other documents from NTA, Committee co-opted Dean, Faculty

of Technology and Dean, Rankings of the University, for proper analysis

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 21 of 62

and assessment of the data.

27. The data analysis was done on the basis of response sheets of the

candidates provided by NTA, using standard technologies such as Microsoft

Excel and Python and industry standard data analysis programming libraries

such as Pandas, Matplotlib and Numpy. Additionally, visual inspection was

also employed as a technique to manually confirm the pattern(s) inferred by

data analytic techniques. No external data was used by the Committee. The

suspicion was not based purely on better performance of the candidates in

some centres but was also on account of the fact that there were matching

patterns of responses of candidates from the suspected centres. The data

from NTA was objectively analysed in respect of particular centres also not

based on probabilities and likelihoods but based on direct calculation of

matching responses of candidates.

28. Second Committee gave the 2024 Report rendering findings that:

(a) similarity index for selected candidates from the specific centres was

80% and above; and (b) a pattern in correct as well as incorrect responses

was discernible such that both correct and incorrect responses of selected

candidates at suspect centres matched. This strengthened the belief of the

University that the examination was compromised by use of unfair means.

29. NTA’s stand that the mechanism adopted by the University for data

analysis is flawed, is baseless. A detailed analysis was carried out by the

Committee based on centre-wise data, number of candidates selected, total

number of candidates in the suspected centres and relative percentage

selection with respect to total number of candidates who gave the

examination at these centres. 13 centres where examination of Laboratory

Attendant was conducted and 10 centres where examination of Library

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 22 of 62

Attendant was conducted, were shortlisted basis this analysis. Response

sheets of selected candidates were analysed using three methods i.e. visual

inspection of colour coded responses; similarity calculation using response

sheets; and visual similarity in incorrect answers. Under method-1, response

sheets were visually analysed by colour coding their responses. Analysis

revealed a very high amount of visual similarity in the responses of many

selected candidates when listed centre-wise. Besides this, at least two

suspected groups of candidates within at least 8 out of 12 centres were

shortlisted as suspect.

30. In method-2, response sheets were analysed using ‘similarity metric’

calculated on the basis of responses against a question ID and groups of

candidates within each centre were formed on the basis of a similarity

threshold of 80%. It was found that the groups formed after percentage

similarity calculations were exactly the same as the ones formed after the

visual inspection of colour coded responses. In method-3, response sheets of

all selected candidates were analysed using answer keys provided by NTA,

basis the responses against a question ID and the analysis revealed a

prominently visible pattern in the incorrect answers of the candidates from

the suspected centres.

31. In light of these glaring revelations, University was well justified

in putting on hold the joining of the selected candidates and no legal

infirmity can be found in this decision. Selected candidates were given the

option to undergo a fresh written test to prove their merit and suitability and

that too only to undergo a qualifying test, but they refused, knowing that

they will not clear the test on merit. University relied on the following

judgments:

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 23 of 62

A. Manish Dabas and Others v. University of Delhi & Anr., LPA

Nos. 39/2007, decided on 04.07.2008;

B. Varun Bhardwaj v. State Bank of India and Ors., 2015 SCC

OnLine Del 13636; and

C. Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi Subordinate Service

Selection Board (DSSSB) and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC

161.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF NTA:

32. NTA conducted the recruitment examination for six different non-

teaching posts of the University in CBT mode from 18.03.2023 to

21.03.2023 in two different shifts (09:00 AM to 12:00 Noon and 03:00 PM

to 06:00 PM) at 87 examination centres in 36 cities across the country for

1,15,997 candidates. Out of 87 examination centres, 64 centres were used

for conducting examination for the Post of Laboratory Attendant and 37

centres were used for the examination for appointments to the Post of

Library Attendant. Eligibility criteria for the post of Laboratory Attendant

was Class X pass or an equivalent examination with Science subjects from

recognized Board and for Library Attendant was Class X pass or equivalent

examination from any State Education Board or Government recognized

Institution with certificate in Library Science/Library & Information Science

from a recognized Institution. As per the marking scheme, the written test

was objective type with MCQs and total marks were 300, allocated to

different test components. As per the communication of the University dated

12.05.2023, additional marks were to be granted to employees of the

University working on contract/daily wages/ad hoc basis in the University

or its constituent Colleges.

33. Meeting of the Result Committee, comprising three Professors from

the University and three officers from NTA, which included Director, NTA

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 24 of 62

an IRS officer; Joint Director, NTA; and Deputy Director, NTA, was held

on 01.07.2023 and result of I

st

stage examination prepared by NTA was

approved. The result was as follows:-

34. Significantly, prior to finalisation of results, the Unfair Means

Committee (‘UFM’), comprising of one Professor being the Senior Advisor

and one Professor from IIT, Delhi and Director, NTA, found only two cases

of malpractices through impersonation and the Committee recommended

cancelling of their candidatures. Result Committee accepted the

recommendations of UFM Committee and candidature of these two

candidates was cancelled. There were no allegations by the University at this

stage of any unfair means being adopted in the centres and/or any possibility

of remote access, hacking, malpractices at the suspected centres etc., the

allegations which are now sought to be levelled, as an afterthought. Result

of stage-I examination was declared on 04.07.2023 along with list of finally

Selected Candidates in order of merit for the posts of Library Attendant and

Laboratory Attendant and list of candidates shortlisted for Stage-II

examination for the remaining four posts.

35. The allegations levelled by the University with respect to use of unfair

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 25 of 62

means during the process of examination are absolutely baseless,

misconceived and not supported with any material on record and it is

evident that the desperate attempt of the University is to prove the non-

existent, by creating a cloud over the examination process. The examination

was conducted in an environment where it was impossible for any candidate

to adopt any unfair means or indulge in malpractices and none has been

shown by the University.

36. The 2024 Committee constituted by the University used inappropriate

tools of analysis and relied upon incomplete and selected data rendering the

conclusions erroneous. The analysis and conclusions are based on

probabilities, without any specific and tangible factors or evidence and the

Report does not inspire confidence. Conclusions are extremely general in

nature and there is complete mismatch with the data analysis carried out by

NTA, which is an sexpert examination conducting body. NTA works on a

zero tolerance policy to malpractices or use of unfair means etc. while

conducting the examinations. NTA has successfully conducted large number

of examinations in CBT mode such as JEE (Main), UGC Net, CSIR UGC

Net, CUET (UG), CUET (PG), in a large number of cities across India and

outside India for lakhs of candidates.

37. NTA adopted stringent and rigorous measures to ensure that integrity

and sanctity of the examination is maintained and for this purpose, several

security protocols were put in place before, during and after the examination

in question in these petitions. There was no reported breach of a single

security protocol in the conduct of the examination. Illustratively, the safety

and security measures adopted by NTA were as follows:-

• Randomised allocation of Exam Centres to the Candidates;

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 26 of 62

• Randomised allocation of Seating/Computer Systems to the

Candidates at Exam Centres;

• Conduct of the Exam/CBT strictly through LAN in the

Computer Labs, with no internet access thereto and only client-to-

server communication was allowed, blocking connection with any

other external third party connections;

• Delivery of Question Paper (QP) to the Exam Centre from NTA

HQ to the Local Servers in the Exam Centres through the Central

Server of the CBT Delivery Agency in encrypted mode only, with

Questions Paper/Response Sheet decrypted only at the time of display

on the candidate's machine;

• The sequence of the questions in the QP/Response Sheet was

jumbled to make it different from candidate to candidate;

• Secured transfer of Recorded Responses of the candidates in

their respective QPs/Response Sheets to NTA through the Server of

the CBT Delivery Agency;

• Installation of password-protected software firewall on each

client machine/computer system used by the Candidates for the exam

to prevent any unauthorized application/remote access thereto and

also to block unwanted ports;

• Deployment of Invigilators at the Exam Centres by the CBT

Delivery Agency in a ratio of 1:30 Candidates;

• Deployment of Independent Observers (mostly from

Academics, Assistant/Associate Professors from Universities/

Colleges), including Faculties from DU and its Constituent Colleges

as well as from JNU, Punjab, Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh and

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 27 of 62

Pondicherry Universities;

• Installation of CCTV Surveillance System at all Exam Centres

for the close monitoring of the examination through the Virtual

Observers, deployed physically at the Control Room in NTA HQ;

• Installations of Jammers at all Examination Centres to prevent

any use of mobile/communication device for malpractice;

• Frisking of Candidates at the Exam Centres through third party

Service Providers;

• Biometric checks of candidates including Thumb Impressions

and Face Recognition,

• Scrutiny and evaluation of Answer Key Challenges by Subject

Experts; and

• Validation of Results by Independent Third-Party Service

Provider for accuracy.

38. Significantly, University has neither been able to establish any breach

in the aforesaid protocols nor placed any cogent material on record which

would establish either that these protocols were not followed or there was

any kind of lapse at the examination centres or during transfer of response

sheets or during their evaluation. In fact, adherence to these protocols and

set procedures is duly reflected in the reports given by independent

observers deployed at the examination centres. No complaints of any kind

least of all of malpractices or use of unfair means were received by the NTA

during or post the examination, save and except, the convoluted stand of the

University, desperately taken to prove that its arbitrary decision was

flawless. Examination Delivery Agency for the examination verified and

certified through a letter dated 30.11.2024, authored by the Chief

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 28 of 62

Technology Officer and addressed to Director, NTA, that measures were

undertaken to avoid any access to the systems through hacking or remote

access, which belies the stand taken by the University at the fag end of the

hearing that there was a possibility that the test computers were hacked.

39. NTA has carried out an independent analysis of the data, which does

not even remotely suggest that the examination at the alleged suspected

centres was compromised in any manner and/or that better performance of

candidates at the suspected centres was due to adoption of unfair means.

2024 Committee concluded that certain candidates from the suspected

centres had greater than 80% similarity in their answer choices, both correct

and incorrect. Committee has clearly chosen only a few sample candidates’

responses and did not take into consideration the entire result to calculate the

answering pattern. Visible pattern was that wherever selected candidates

opted for incorrect options in an attempt to go nearest to the correct answers,

the same incorrect options were opted for by a majority of the candidates

who appeared in the examination. Illustratively, for the post of Laboratory

Attendant (Shift-I) in centre Swami Parmanand Group of College, in respect

of Question ID 201018, as per answer key option ‘2’ was the correct answer.

Number of candidates who opted for option ‘2’ was 39 while 4 opted for

option ‘1’, 6 for option ‘3’ and 29 for option ‘4’. Total responses were 78

and the pattern that emerged was as follows:-

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 29 of 62

40. In other words, question-wise percentage of incorrect responses by

2655 candidates for the post of Library Attendant, 4604 candidates for the

post of Laboratory Attendant (Shift-I) and 3802 candidates for the post of

Laboratory Attendant (Shift-II), demonstrates the same pattern. Illustratively

in respect of Library Attendant for Question ID 201162, correct option was

‘3’. 495 candidates opted for option ‘1’ making it 18.64%, while 125 opted

for option ‘2’ making it 4.71% and 66 opted for option ‘4’ i.e. 2.49%. This

analysis shows that number of candidates who attempted incorrect response

out of 2655 candidates were 686 i.e. 25.84%. Therefore, the contention of

the University that there was a visible pattern of increased similarity in the

incorrect answers of selected candidates alone is factually incorrect.

41. The possibility of the examination being compromised is also ruled

out by the fact that the seating arrangements in all the centres were

completely automated and randomised. All questions were jumbled and

same question was not displayed on the computer screen of all candidates at

the same time as also that question IDs had no correlation with the seating

arrangements. The question papers did not follow the same series or patterns

and were prepared after randomisation of questions for different candidates,

thereby changing the sequence of the questions.

42. The examination centres were allotted randomly with no set pattern.

The invigilators were deployed in the ratio of 1:30 i.e. overall 3867

invigilators were deployed for the entire examination process involving all

the posts in question. Additionally, 387 observers were also deployed, of

which 18 were faculties from colleges of the University. The examination

was conducted over a secured LAN network, blocking all external

connections and ensuring encrypted delivery of question papers. Sequence

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 30 of 62

of questions were randomised and candidates’ responses were securely

transmitted to the main server. Password protected firewalls were installed

on all clients machines and biometric checks with strict monitoring through

CCTV ensured transparency. This position is fortified by the reports of

independent observers, which do not bring forth any adverse comment on

the conduct of the examination.

43. Moreover, contrary to the stand of the University, tabular

representation of centre-wise data showcases the number of allotted

candidates, attended candidates and the selected candidates in two shifts and

when percentage is calculated on the basis of total number of candidates at a

particular centre, it does not support the University’s stand that there was an

exceptional number of candidates selected from any one centre. University

has adopted a flawed method of calculating by taking a number of three

selected candidates from each centre and termed it as ‘suspected centre’,

irrespective of the total number of candidates who undertook the

examination and therefore, the percentages on both counts worked out by

the University are erroneous.

44. Looking at the timeline/difference of the time lag in many cases,

which spans over 40 minutes in many cases, the allegation of candidates

attempting questions by copying are completely ruled out. Analysis by NTA

also reflects the time lag in attempting incorrect questions by the candidates

and when this is seen holistically with randomised seating arrangement and

the fact that question papers had different series or patterns, there can be no

doubt that no unfair means could have been adopted by the candidates.

45. University highlighted 13 centres in Laboratory Attendant

examination and 10 in Library Attendant examination, wherein at least 3

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 31 of 62

candidates were finally selected from 64 examination centres for the post of

Laboratory Attendant and 35 for the post of Library Attendant. After

conducting a thorough examination of the candidate audit logs by NTA, it

was observed that in Laboratory Attendant examination, 8406 candidates

appeared of which 151 were selected resulting in selection rate of 1.80% and

no candidate was selected from 36 centres out of 64. In the 13 centres, a

total of 4418 candidates appeared of which 134 were selected resulting in

overall selection rate of 3.03%. Selection rate varies significantly across

these centres, with the lowest being 0.50% and highest reaching 13.16%. For

the Library Attendant examination conducted across 35 centres, 2655

candidates appeared of which 108 were selected leading to selection rate of

4.07%. Also, no candidate was selected from 14 centres. With the sub-set of

10 centres that University flagged as suspicious, 2197 candidates appeared

for the examination and 93 were selected, resulting in a slightly higher rate

of 4.23%. The rate varied widely amongst these centres with the lowest

being 2.05% and the highest at 42.86%. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

selection rate at the allegedly suspected centres was abnormally higher

compared to a pattern that was visible in respect of all centres.

46. Three methods for analysis are stated to have been followed by the

University. Each of these analysis overlooks various crucial issues.

Consistency observed in colour coded responses can be attributed to the fact

that each question ID is linked to a unique answer. The evaluation process

failed to consider the audit logs, which provide insights into the actual

duration candidates spent on answering the questions and their seating

arrangement. Audit logs for a sample of 8 candidates divided into four

groups, from three different centres were scrutinized to validate the timing

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 32 of 62

of their identical same responses and analysis revealed that same answers

were provided with a time difference exceeding 40 minutes. The second

method of similarity analysis has been done by dividing the total number of

matching responses by total number of attempted questions, overlooking

that candidates may have attempted a varying number of questions, which

could lead to variations in the calculated percentage of similarity.

47. In the third method of analysis pertaining to incorrect same responses,

NTA conducted an analysis focusing on the incorrect responses in the case

of Laboratory Attendants carried out on the top 5 centres with the highest

number of selected candidates, using two approaches. Approach ‘A’

included identifying 5 candidates based on highest number of same incorrect

answers and each of the candidates was compared against another set of 10

candidates, who took the examination at the same centre and a huge time

difference was found centre-wise. In Approach ‘B’, 5 candidates were

identified, who had the highest number of incorrect answers and for these

question IDs were examined and the incorrect responses were compared to

those given by all candidates in the centre. It was found that roll numbers of

no selected candidate were in a consecutive sequence thereby, ruling out any

possibility of cheating.

48. The stand of the University that selected candidates had average or

below average scores in Classes X and XII leading to a conclusion of unfair

means to obtain high marks, is misconceived. Firstly, there is no rule that a

candidate scoring average or below average marks in Class X or Class XII

cannot perform well in a competitive examination and secondly, even on a

factual note, the submission is incorrect inasmuch as 73% of candidates

applying for Library Attendant and 67% of candidates applying for

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 33 of 62

Laboratory Attendant achieved scores exceeding 60% in Class XII and most

of the candidates were either graduates or post-graduates albeit the required

educational qualification was Class X and certainly, these qualifications

acquired after school added to the knowledge and calibre of the candidates.

49. University is also not correct in its stand that hardly any question was

left un-attempted by candidates from suspected centres which is strange

considering that the marking scheme had negative marking. The data

indicates that many candidates had left several questions un-attempted.

Illustratively, candidate at Roll Number DL01151004 gave 112 correct, 17

incorrect answers and left 21 unattempted. Interestingly, in the extensive

hearing before the Court and in exercise undertaken to point out the alleged

unfair means used, University has been unable to place iota of material or

evidence which even remotely suggests what unfair means were used by

selected candidates and if so, how.

50. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their respective

submissions.

51. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is imperative and useful

to look at the law laid down by the Supreme Court in matters pertaining to

cancellation of examinations, both from the perspective of the scope of

judicial interference as also the parameters and facts and circumstances in

which Courts may or may not interfere.

52. On the aspect of judicial review, it will be apposite to refer to the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6

SCC 651, wherein it was held that judicial review is concerned with

reviewing not the merit of the decision but the decision making process

itself and is thus different from an appeal. Where selection or rejection is

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 34 of 62

arbitrary, certainly the Court would interfere. In Chairman, All India

Railway Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and Others,

2010 SCC OnLine SC 579, the Supreme Court reiterated this principle as

also the law that basis of the judicial review could be highlighted under three

principal heads namely, illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality.

Illegality means that decision maker must understand the law correctly that

regulates his decision making power and must give effect to it. Grounds

such as errors of law and/or fact, taking into consideration irrelevant factors

and ignoring the relevant ones, acting in bad faith, fettering discretion etc.

fall under ‘illegality’. Procedural impropriety is where mandatory

procedures such as breach of natural justice, absence of bias etc. are not

followed. Ground of irrationality takes in Wednesbury unreasonableness

propounded in Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v.

Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 K.B. 223. Wednesbury applies to a

decision which is so reprehensible in its defiance of logic such that no

sensible person who applied his mind to the issue would have arrived at the

decision. Leyland and Anthony in Textbook on Administrative Law, 5

th

Edn.,

OUP, 2005, proposed as follows:-

“Proportionality works on the assumption that administrative action ought

not to go beyond what is necessary to achieve its desired results (in

everyday terms, that you should not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut)

and in contrast to irrationality is often understood to bring the courts

much closer to reviewing the merits of a decision.”

53. The Supreme Court has from time to time elucidated principles

delineating the scope of judicial interference in matters relating to

examination and selection processes. In Sachin Kumar (supra), Supreme

Court referred to the earlier decisions on the subject over the last five

decades wherein the question was whether the examination process was

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 35 of 62

vitiated and the resultant consequences and/or the reliefs that can be given in

a particular case. It was held that the answer to the question whether process

of an examination stands vitiated or not essentially lies in finding out

whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level

so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. One end of the spectrum are cases

which border upon or cross over into the domain of fraud as a result of

which credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded and in such a case

the authority concerned may well take a decision to cancel the examination

in entirety as the process loses its legitimacy. Here, the decision need not

turn upon a fact finding exercise into individual acts involving use of

malpractices or unfair means and it may be difficult to segregate tainted

from untainted participants. However, at the other end of the spectrum are

cases where some participants are guilty of irregularities and segregation of

tainted and untainted may be possible as this exercise would find

embodiment in the Constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act

fairly and reasonably.

54. In Anamica Mishra and Others v. U.P. Public Service Commission,

Allahabad and Others, 1989 SCC OnLine SC 414, the Supreme Court was

examining the issue of cancellation of the examination process involving

recruitment to various posts in the educational services of the State of Uttar

Pradesh. It was held that the cancellation of the entire process was not

justified as the case was representative of a situation where there was no

systemic flaw in the written test. In Union of India and Others v. Rajesh

P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 285, the Supreme Court

held that in the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by

any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all-

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 36 of 62

pervasive nature which could be really said to have undermined the very

process itself in its entirety or as a whole, there was hardly any justification

in law to deny appointments to selected candidates whose selection were not

found to be vitiated.

55. In Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others v. State of Punjab and

Others, (2006) 11 SCC 356, the Supreme Court emphasised compliance of

three principles at the hands of the State: (a) to establish satisfaction in

regard to sufficiency of material collected so as to enable the State to arrive

at its satisfaction that the selection process was tainted; (b) to determine the

question that illegalities committed go to the root of the matter which vitiate

the entire selection process and such satisfaction as also sufficiency of

material were to be gathered by reason of a thorough investigation in a fair

and transparent manner; and (c) whether the sufficient material present

enable the State to arrive at a satisfaction that majority were found to be part

of fraudulent purpose.

56. In Vanshika Yadav (supra), the Supreme Court held that cancellation

of an examination is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the exam is

found to be compromised at a systemic level i.e. the standard of evidence on

record should indicate systemic malaise. It was also held that Court may

direct cancellation of an exam or approve such cancellation by the

Competent Authority only if it is not possible to separate the tainted

candidates from the untainted ones.

57. I may now refer to the judgments where examination process was

held to be vitiated and the facts and circumstances obtaining therein as this

would shed light on the gross facts in which Courts have interfered and held

that the examination was vitiated. In Sachin Kumar (supra), the Supreme

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 37 of 62

Court noticed that the Committee had found deficiencies of a systemic

nature which casts serious doubts on the legitimacy of the entire recruitment

process. The starting point of the case was receipt of serious complaints in

the office of Chief Minister, GNCTD regarding conduct of examination by

DSSSB for the post of Grade-II DASS and a Committee was constituted

comprising of Director, Vigilance and District Magistrate to inquire into the

matter. The Committee found on preliminary examination that: (a) as against

62056 applicants, only 8224 had appeared in Tier-I examination as adequate

information had not been furnished to the candidates; (b) candidates had

secured high marks in Tier-I but extremely low marks in Tier-II;

(c) concentration of candidates from a particular area of Delhi and a

domination by a particular section of the society based on their surnames;

(d) members of same family were found to be sitting in close proximity both

in Tier-I and Tier-II exam; (e) absence of randomisation in the seating

arrangement; (f) inability of the candidates to access the internet to

download the e-admit cards; (g) racket leading to impersonation of

candidates involving a person who was identified as Chief Invigilator at a

particular centre and who was connected with a coaching centre involved in

leakage of question papers; (h) this very person had repeatedly fixed his

duties in a choice of his own centres with the help of DSSSB staff;

(i) videography was blurred; (j) thumb impressions were unrecognisable;

(k) jammers were not working properly; (l) candidates were allowed to

appear without looking into their educational qualifications; and (m) prima

facie evidence that flying squad members were passing answers to

candidates. It is in this backdrop that the Supreme Court held that

recruitment to public services must command public confidence and where

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 38 of 62

entire process is found to be flawed, the decision to cancel the examination

cannot be faulted with.

58. In K. Shyam Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court took note of the

report of the Vigilance Department that several candidates were suspected

to have obtained answers to the questions a few hours before the exam

through a middleman who had accepted bribe. 62 candidates were alleged to

have impersonated and at least 6 candidates had adopted unfair means.

Investigation prima facie revealed leakage of question paper to a sizeable

number of candidates. Decision of the Railway Recruitment Board was

upheld on the ground of the process being vitiated due to leakage of question

papers, large scale impersonation and mass copying.

59. In State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others,

(2021) 16 SCC 217, the allegations were of large scale malpractices in the

written examination involving tampering of OMR sheets. After re-

evaluation, discrepancies were found in entries pertaining to 196 candidates,

who were beneficiaries of fraudulent alteration of marks. Division Bench of

the High Court held that fabrication of record pertained only to 196

candidates and since segregation was possible, entire examination need not

be cancelled. Supreme Court reversed the decision on the ground that many

people had benefitted due to tampering of OMR answer sheets and on a

deeper scrutiny, sufficient material was found against 196 persons who were

clearly beneficiaries of the fraud in alteration of marks. More material was

being unearthed as the investigation was in progress and several people had

been arrested.

60. From a reading of the aforesaid judgments, it is clear as day that

purity of an examination process is unquestionable and where there are

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 39 of 62

allegations of occurrence of large scale malpractices, fraud, leakage of

paper, mass copying, exchange of bribe etc., in the course of conduct of any

examination process, the State or its instrumentalities are certainly entitled

to cancel the examination. It is equally settled that the view taken by the

recruiting authority must be a bona fide view based on sufficient material

before it, leading to a conclusion that the entire process stands vitiated.

Of-course, there may be situations, as held by the Supreme Court in a

number of judgments, where candidates who have indulged in irregularities

can be identified and there is a possibility of segregating tainted and

untainted candidates. This too must be a considered and bona fide

decision of the recruiting agency. Pithily put, there must be material

on record justifying cancellation of the entire selection/examination

process.

61. Before delving into the rival contentions of the parties, it is useful to

refer to the trajectory of this case. Genesis of this case lies in Notifications

dated 25.08.2023 and 29.08.2023, whereby joining of selected candidates,

who had offer letters in their favour for appointments, was put on hold. The

first Notification was issued basis an ‘informal interaction’ by University

officials with candidates who had reported before this date. The stand in

affidavit dated 22.07.2024 is that their competency did not match the

respective marks scored by them in the written examination. In the next

affidavit dated 25.11.2024, it is stated by the University that candidates who

received their offers of appointment started reporting to the University from

21.08.2024. Laboratory Attendants who were offered appointments were

required to be posted in different Departments for deployment in the

laboratories and therefore to understand their interest and aptitude to decide

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 40 of 62

their postings, officials of the University informally interacted with

these candidates and it was found that there was a huge gap in the

basic understanding and knowledge in the respective fields of these

candidates vis-à-vis their performance in the written test where they scored

as high as more than 90% marks. There was also a gap in the marks

obtained by them in Class X and Class XII and the written examination.

This procedure, virtually amounting to introducing a second step in

the selection process, to say the least, is untenable in law, for multiple

reasons.

62. Recruitment to the posts in question was regulated by a Scheme of

Examination clearly spelt out in the Advertisement-cum-‘Information

Brochure & Guidelines for filling of Online Application form for

recruitment of Non-Teaching Positions in Delhi University’. The eligibility

conditions with respect to age, educational qualifications etc. were also

prescribed. For both the posts, the minimum educational qualification was

Class X pass with additional certificates as per the requirement of the posts

in question. Perusal of the advertisement shows that for the posts of

Laboratory Attendant and Library Attendant, only an objective written test

with MCQs was prescribed. Manner and mode for drawing up the final merit

list was also provided in the Advertisement, as per which minimum overall

qualifying marks for the written test were 45% for unreserved posts, 40% for

posts reserved for OBC and 35% for SC/ST/PwBD categories. The marking

scheme did not envisage a second tier in the selection process in the form of

interview/interaction/personality test/skill test etc. for the two posts in

question. Wherever required or contemplated, it was specifically mentioned

in the Advertisement, against the specific posts that written test will be

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 41 of 62

followed by interview/interaction/personality test. The question that begs an

answer is whether University was entitled to resort to an informal interaction

with 9 candidates in the category of Laboratory Attendant, who joined

pursuant to receipt of offers for appointment, not just for postings but for

assessing their knowledge and competency and the answer can only be a

clear ‘No’. This process is completely in the teeth of the Advertisement and

the marking scheme postulated therein. It was not open to the University to

introduce a second tier of selection, which was not mentioned in the

Advertisement and which finally became the cause of putting the whole

selection process to a halt.

63. Strangely, despite multiple affidavits filed by the University, it has not

come to light as to who were the officials who interacted and where. There

is no disclosure on the nature of interaction and/or the questions put to the

candidates to assess their knowledge, competency and calibre and how the

answers to the questions led to the assumption that unfair means were

allegedly used by these 9 candidates in the examination. Moreover, it is not

understood how the alleged incompetency of merely 9 candidates could lead

to a conclusion that the other selected candidates, who had not even joined,

were incompetent or lacked knowledge enough to obtain higher scores in the

examination. Petitioners are right in flagging that if this interaction became

the basis of the serious decision to put on hold the joining of selected

candidates, the process of interaction ought to have been docketed in the

records of the University with the names of the officials who interacted, but

as a matter of fact, University never placed any material on record to

establish this interaction, assuming it was a valid exercise. Therefore,

whether or not there was any such informal interaction is itself suspect.

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 42 of 62

64. The entire process of the alleged informal interaction, besides being

alien to the scheme of examination, also gets shrouded in a mystery for the

reason that till the date of the first Notification dated 25.08.2023, there was

no complaint pertaining to the conduct of examination by NTA, either by

any unsuccessful candidate or a third party, during or after the examination.

The selected candidates had cleared the written test and were in receipt of

offers of appointment. On joining, the only exercise that remained was

verification of their documents pertaining to educational qualifications, age

proof, caste certificates etc. There was neither any occasion nor reason for

the University officials to enter into the exercise of informal interaction to

assess the competency of selected candidates. The stand that the interaction

was for deciding the postings in various laboratories, is also an afterthought.

Petitioners were qualified and selected candidates and there was no

requirement of testing anyone’s interest or aptitude to post in any laboratory.

This procedure gives strength to the allegation levelled by the Petitioners in

writing as also during the course of hearing repeatedly, that the decision to

put on hold the joining of selected candidates was motivated at the instance

of contract employees working in the University who were naturally

insecure with regular appointments being made and were behind this

motivated action.

65. There is, in fact, a danger in endorsing this kind of an informal

interaction, assuming there was one. If it is left open to employers to

informally interact with selected candidates and judge their calibre,

knowledge or competence, at the time of reporting for joining, the selection

process will become subjective and open doors to arbitrariness, pick and

choose, favouritism, making the examination meaningless, besides breeding

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 43 of 62

corruption. Any selected candidate could then be thrown out on the basis of

an informal interaction.

66. Coming back to the chronology of events, moving ahead with this

weak foundation, University proceeded to task an existing Committee

constituted on 06.04.2023 to look into the issue of use of unfair means

by the candidates in the examination. Admittedly, at this stage, the

Committee was not privy to complete data from NTA. The analysis of the

Committee was based on information received from the candidates to whom

offer letters were issued. The 2023 Report shows that the analysis was

Centre-based. Committee looked into the number of centres at Delhi,

Chandigarh and Shimla and the number of selected candidates and

concluded that concentration of toppers in the merit list was from few

centres and there was no or minimal representation from bigger States like

U.P., Bihar and Rajasthan. As the report shows, the Committee was also

influenced by the results of the selected candidates in the Classes X and XII

finding a wide gap between the marks obtained by the candidates in these

classes and those scored in the written examination. To the Committee it

appeared to be an impossible proposition that more than 100 candidates had

secured more than 90% marks with almost 20 obtaining 95% marks

especially when there was negative marking. All this led to a conclusion that

unfair means had been used in the written examination and a

recommendation was made that the joining of the selected candidates be put

on hold.

67. As the chronology goes, University constituted another Committee on

28.11.2023 and after NTA provided the requisite data, Committee rendered

the 2024 Report, relevant part of which is as follows:-

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 44 of 62

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 45 of 62

68. Broadly understood, according to the University, the analysis of the

reports of two Committees revealed that: (a) there was concentration of the

toppers in the merit list from few specific centres; (b) non-selection of

candidates from majority of the centres; (c) nil or minimal representation

from bigger States such as U.P., Bihar, Rajasthan; (d) wide gap between

knowledge of the candidates and marks obtained by them in the written

tests; (e) wide gap in the percentage of marks secured in Classes X or XII

ranging between 33 to 50% and marks in the examination in question i.e.

90% or more; (f) more than 100 candidates secured more than 90% in the

examination with almost 20 candidates obtaining almost 95% marks;

(g) impossibility of obtaining high scores in an examination with negative

marking consisting of questions from a wide range of subjects; (h) similarity

index for selected candidates from specific centres being 80% and above;

(i) visible pattern of correct and incorrect responses; (j) same questions

answered incorrectly being not from the Sections where the questions are

generally considered difficult; and (k) no question being left unattempted by

candidates from suspected centres. This, according to the University, raised

serious suspicion of unfair means being used by the candidates during the

conduct of the examination.

69. The entire case of the University is predicated on data analysis by the

2024 Committee, constituted by the University to look into various facets of

the examination process, which allegedly gave rise to a suspicion of use of

unfair means. To demonstrate the data analysis, University has placed on

record the data in the form of excel sheets colour coded to indicate the

marks scored, percentages, ranks etc. In the common additional affidavit

filed towards the fag end of the hearing, it is explained that data analysis was

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 46 of 62

done using standard technologies such as Microsoft Excel and Python and

industry standard data analysis programming such as Pandas, Matplotlib and

Numpy including visual inspections. University categorises ‘suspected

centres’ as those centres from where at least three candidates were finally

selected with a rationale of choosing three as the least number of candidates

to highlight that systemic cheating/unfair means at a centre must at least

affect the result of three candidates belonging to the centre. As per the

affidavit, there were 21 suspected centres for both the posts, which have

been detailed in the common affidavit. As per the University, the analysis

outcome of the visual inspection of the response sheets of all selected

candidates by colour coding their responses was that there was a very high

amount of visual similarity in the responses when listed centre-wise and at

least two suspected groups of candidates within at least eight out of twelve

centres had similar responses.

70. By the second method, the Committee analysed the response sheets of

selected candidates using a similarity metric calculated on the basis of

responses against a question ID and groups of candidates within each centre

were formed on the basis of similarity threshold of 80% and the outcome

was that groups formed after percentage similarity calculations were exactly

the same as those formed after visual inspection and multiple response

sheets from the same centre had even more similarities. The third method

adopted by the University was by taking the response sheets of all selected

candidates and analysing them using answer keys provided by the NTA

basis the responses against a question ID and coming to a conclusion that

there was a visible pattern in the incorrect answers of the candidates in the

suspected centres in terms of similarity which did not appear to be in the

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 47 of 62

unsuspected centres. The conclusion drawn was that an extremely high

majority of the highest scoring candidates came from the pool of candidates

who had given their exams in the suspected exam centres while pool of

candidates who had given their exams in the unsuspected centres had

considerably law values of grand totals and percentages as also that

candidates from the suspected centre had greater than 80% similarity in their

answer choices, both correct and incorrect.

71. As rightly flagged by NTA, the data analysis by the Committee was

restricted to what the University terms as ‘suspected centres’ and ‘selected

candidates’ and therefore, by travelling on a wrong path, University reached

the wrong destination. Suspected centres, as explained in the affidavit dated

17.02.2025, were centres where at least 03 candidates were finally selected,

the rationale of choosing three as the least number of candidates being to

show a systemic cheating/unfair means pattern. As further stated in the

affidavit, 13 centres for the examination of Laboratory Attendant and 10

centres for the examination of Library Attendant were shortlisted, basis this

analysis. With this restricted data, University proceeded to analyse the same

by three methods, as aforementioned. The data analysis exercise reveals that

having taken an erroneous decision at the initial stage to put on hold joining

of the selected candidates, possibly under the extraneous influence of the

Karamchari Union, University resorted to a process of reverse engineering

to create material to support its plea of use of unfair means.

72. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that neither from the data

analysis, which is placed on record nor from the affidavits filed from time to

time by the University, it is discernible as to what unfair means were

adopted by the selected candidates and/or what was their modus operandi to

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 48 of 62

obtain the high scores. The conclusions drawn are purely hypothetical, based

on percentage analysis of number of suspected centres, number of selected

candidates, their scores in Classes X and XII, geographical locations of the

centres etc. The onus was clearly on the University to place on record some

material to reach a conclusion that the process of examination was

compromised, which it has failed to discharge. This missing link becomes

significant when one looks at the categorical stand of NTA that security

protocols were scrupulously observed, both during the conduct of the

examination and subsequent thereto, for transferring and evaluating the

responses of the candidates. It is equally pertinent to note that University has

not succeeded in denting the case of NTA that there was absolutely no

breach of any protocol at any centre.

73. It is crucial to capture the security protocols put in place by NTA, at

the cost of repetition, as follows:-

• Randomised allocation of Exam Centres to the Candidates;

• Randomised allocation of Seating/Computer Systems to the

Candidates at Exam Centres;

• Conduct of the Exam/CBT was strictly through LAN in the

Computer Labs, with no internet access thereto and only client-to-

server communication was allowed, blocking connection with any

other external third party connections;

• Delivery of Question Paper (QP) to the Exam Centre from NTA

HQ to the Local Servers in the Exam Centres through the Central

Server of the CBT Delivery Agency in encrypted mode only, with

Questions Paper/Response Sheet decrypted only at the time of display

on the candidate's machine;

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 49 of 62

• The sequence of the questions in the QP/Response Sheet was

jumbled to make it different from candidate to candidate;

• Secured transfer of Recorded Responses of the candidates in

their respective QPs/Response Sheets to NTA through the Server of

the CBT Delivery Agency;

• Installation of password-protected software firewall on each

client machine/computer system used by the Candidates for the exam

to prevent any unauthorized application/remote access thereto and

also to block unwanted ports

• Deployment of Invigilators at the Exam Centres by the CBT

Delivery Agency in a ratio of 1:30 Candidates;

• Deployment of Independent Observers (mostly from

Academics, Assistant/Associate Professors from Universities/

Colleges), including Faculties from DU and its Constituent Colleges

as well as from JNU and several other Universities;

• Installation of CCTV Surveillance System at all Exam Centres

for the close monitoring of the examination through the Virtual

Observers physically deployed at the Control Room in NTA HQ;

• Installation of Jammers at all Examination Centres to prevent

any use of mobile/communication device for malpractice;

• Frisking of Candidates at the Exam Centres through Third Party

Service Providers;

• Biometric checks of candidates including Thumb Impressions

and Face Recognition;

• Scrutiny and evaluation of Answer Key Challenges by Subject

Experts; and

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 50 of 62

• Validation of Results by Independent Third-Party Service

Provider for accuracy.

74. To support this plea, NTA has shown to the Court the reports of the

independent observers deployed at the examination centres and has been

able to demonstrate that there were no adverse reports of any malpractice/

use of unfair means at any centre. The format of the observer’s report shows

that a detailed questionnaire was required to be filled by the observers by

answering ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Satisfactory’. Illustratively, in one of the

observer’s report, the relevant questions were: (a) whether the candidates

were randomly allocated to their nodes; (b) was there proper partitioning

between each computer system to avoid looking into the screen of the other;

(c) whether clear instructions were given for not carrying mobile phone or

any other electronic gadget at the main entrance; (d) whether candidates

were frisked at the entrance as per prescribed norms; and (e) whether only

one gate was used for entry and other gates, if any, were locked.

75. As rightly flagged by NTA, no complaints of any kind were received

in respect of the present examination. NTA also relied on communication

from Chief Technology Officer of the Firm which was technical partner of

NTA for the conduct of examination certifying that there was no evidence of

hacking/remote access in the examination bringing to light that: (a) an EXE

was installed on all test computers individually, with a view to disable any

third party applications including remote desktop applications; (b) Hardware

Firewalls were used to create a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to secure the

network traffic, block unauthorized access to test computers from outside

and to ensure that only authorized systems access the exam server via MAC-

binding; (c) Software Firewalls were used on each Test computer to block

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 51 of 62

all the ports other than the port required to communicate to the local server

so that other computers cannot talk to the test computers; and (d) continuous

monitoring of the examination process was done by the Technical Team of

the said Firm from its headquarter in Bengaluru as well as NTA control

room in Delhi. This position is completely uncontroverted by the University,

save and except, subtly stating that the possibility of hacking/remote access

cannot be ruled out.

76. With these rigorous security protocols in place, NTA rightly urges

that the examination in question was not susceptible to any unfair or

malpractices by the candidates by emphasising on the factum of randomised

allocation of seating/computer systems to the candidates and also

highlighting that it is not the case of the University that the candidates in any

centre were sitting in a sequence where any of them were either known to

each other or related in any manner. Once there was no breach of the

aforementioned protocols and the candidates had no opportunity to adopt

any unfair means, it is not understood on what basis these serious allegations

were levelled against the selected candidates leading to putting their joining

on hold. As noted above, University is not able to demonstrate the modus

operandi of the candidates to cheat, with all the stringent security protocols

of NTA in place.

77. The data analysis exercise is nothing but a guise to cover up the

illegal and arbitrary decision of the University to stall the joining of selected

candidates and does not inspire any confidence. For the sake of

completeness, I may briefly deal with the contentions of the University on

this aspect, conscious of the fact that in judicial review this Court cannot go

into the merit of the decision as an appellant Court but equally conscious of

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 52 of 62

the fact that the decision making process and its rationality, is open to

examination to prevent miscarriage of justice to the individuals involved and

affected by the decision.

78. The contention that there was concentration of toppers in the merit list

from few specific centres or that there was non-selection of candidates from

majority of the centres albeit may be correct on a factual note but cannot

per se lead to an inference of use of unfair means, sans sufficient material on

record pointing to a compromise at systemic level in these centres.

Moreover, it is not uncommon in any competitive examination that number

of selected candidates may be more from some centres as compared to other

centres, which may be co-related to the seating capacity of the centres,

number of candidates appearing in those centres, location of the centres in

rural or urban areas, where the latter may be hubs of coaching centres. This

phenomenon could also be a result of candidates attending a particular

coaching centre in which case ordinarily they tend to fill up the forms at the

same time and are allotted the same centres.

79. This plea of the University is completely baseless in the present case

since Petitioners have taken a categorical position that they had only

selected three preferred cities while filling up the forms and were not

entitled to select examination centres which were allocated by NTA and this

is fortified by NTA and not traversed by the University. In fact, Petitioners

have also stated that a lot of selected candidates were not allotted centres in

any of the three cities preferred by them, a fact again uncontroverted.

Moreover, NTA has brought forth that after conducting a thorough

examination of the candidate audit logs by NTA, it was observed that in

Laboratory Attendant examination, 8406 candidates appeared of which 151

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 53 of 62

were selected resulting in selection rate of 1.80% and no candidate was

selected from 36 centres out of 64. In the 13 centres, a total of 4418

candidates appeared of which 134 were selected resulting in overall

selection rate of 3.03%. Selection rate varied significantly across these

centres, with the lowest being 0.50% and highest reaching 13.16%. For the

Library Attendant examination conducted across 35 centres, 2655 candidates

appeared of which 108 were selected leading to selection rate of 4.07%.

Also, no candidate was selected from 14 centres. With the sub-set of 10

centres that University flagged as suspicious, 2197 candidates appeared for

the examination and 93 were selected, resulting in a slightly higher rate of

4.23%. The rate varied widely amongst these centres with the lowest being

2.05% and the highest at 42.86%. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

selection rate at the allegedly suspected centres was abnormally higher

compared to a pattern that was visible in respect of all centres.

80. The submission that there was nil or minimal representation from

bigger States such as U.P., Bihar and Rajasthan is negated by NTA by

placing before the Court data, which indicates that candidates were selected

from Bihar, Rajasthan, U.P., Delhi, Haryana, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,

Manipur, Odisha, Punjab, Tripura, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Jharkhand

and Andhra Pradesh.

81. It was contended on behalf of the University that there is a wide gap

between the knowledge of the selected candidates and marks in Classes X

and XII on one side and marks obtained in the written examination by NTA.

This contention only deserves to be rejected. It is not uncommon that many

candidates may not have secured exceptionally high marks in Classes X and

XII but have performed exceptionally well in the competitive examinations.

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 54 of 62

The minimum eligibility educational qualification for the present

examination for the posts of Laboratory Attendant and Library Attendant

was Class X and many Petitioners are Graduates or even Post-Graduates.

The examination was notified in 2021 but was held in 2023 i.e. after one and

a half year. Seen holistically, the time available to the candidates for

preparing the examination together with their educational qualifications, one

cannot reach a conclusion that having scored 60 to 70% marks in Class X

years earlier, candidates had no scope of improvement. The argument is

merely presumptive.

82. There is also no merit in the plea of the University that it was

impossible to obtain high scores over 90% in an examination with negative

marking consisting of questions from a wide range of subjects. Petitioners

have rightly flagged that in many other examinations, candidates have

scored 100% despite the marking scheme including negative marking.

Illustratively, it was pointed out that cut-off for the post of Forest Guard

examination conducted by GNCTD in 2022 was 200 out of 200 for the

general category and the top 3 successful for the posts of Canteen Attendant

in an examination conducted by SSC, 2024 had scored higher than 95%

marks. Once the University has failed to prove use of any unfair means, this

convoluted process of questioning the calibre of selected candidates to

obtain high scores, is unacceptable.

83. Much emphasis was laid by the University on the similarity index for

selected candidates from specific centres being 80% and above. The plea is

that there is a visible pattern of correct and incorrect responses being the

same for selected candidates even though questions answered incorrectly are

not from sections which were difficult to answer. The very foundation of

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 55 of 62

this data analysis and conclusion is shaky for the reason that University has

only taken into consideration selected candidates and that too, from limited

suspected centres to form the data base. NTA, on the other hand, has

analysed with a broader data base. The data sheets filed on record show that

analysis is made question-wise first by taking number of candidates

attempting incorrect response out of 108 selected candidates for the post of

Library Attendant and then comparing the percentage of incorrect responses

out of 108 with percentage of incorrect responses out of 2655 candidates.

Similar exercise is done for 86 selected candidates for the post of Laboratory

Attendant by comparing the percentage of incorrect responses out of 86 and

percentage of incorrect responses out of 4604. Thereafter, the analysis is of

question-wise percentage of incorrect responses by 2655 candidates by

taking the number of candidates who attempted incorrect responses and

working out the percentage with a similar exercise for question-wise

percentage of incorrect responses by 4604 candidates for the post of

Laboratory Attendant and working out the percentage of incorrect responses.

This exercise was in respect of Shift-I and with different data base, similar

exercise was carried out for Shift-II as well.

84. NTA has demonstrated that question-wise percentage of incorrect

responses by 2655 candidates for the post of Library Attendant, 4604

candidates for the post of Laboratory Attendant (Shift-I) and 3802

candidates for the post of Laboratory Attendant (Shift-II), reveals the same

pattern. Illustratively in respect of Library Attendant for Question ID

201162, correct option was ‘3’. 495 candidates opted for option ‘1’ making

it 18.64%, while 125 opted for option ‘2’ making it 4.71% and 66 opted for

option ‘4’ i.e. 2.49%. This analysis shows that number of candidates who

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 56 of 62

attempted incorrect response out of 2655 candidates were 686 i.e. 25.84%.

Therefore, the contention of the University that there was a visible pattern of

increased similarity in the incorrect answers of selected candidates alone is

factually incorrect.

85. NTA has shown the incorrect responses did not match only amongst

the selected candidates at the suspected centre but also matched with the

selected candidates in the non-suspected centres as also that the percentage

of incorrect responses within the same centre and within the same shift was

fairly close, which demolishes the star argument of the University that the

incorrect responses of the selected candidates in the suspect centres were

matching and therefore the probability of use of unfair means. The two

tables used by NTA to explain its stand, prepared question wise, are

extracted hereunder, for ready reference:-

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 57 of 62

86. The analysis by NTA completely defeats the theory of University that

the incorrect responses of the selected candidates at the suspected centres

only were matching, leading to an inference of use of unfair means by them.

NTA has also negated the plea of the University that no questions were

left un-attempted. It has placed on record a detailed data showing a

number of questions left un-attempted. Illustratively, candidate at Roll

Number DL01151004 gave 112 correct, 17 incorrect answers and left 21

un-attempted.

87. Another important facet of this case, rightly highlighted by NTA is

that a Result Committee was constituted, comprising of three Professors

from the University and three Officers from NTA. The University members

included Director, DUCC, OSD (Examination) and Joint Dean (Students

Welfare) and members from NTA were Director, NTA, an IRS officer, Joint

Director, NTA and Deputy Director, NTA. The Result Committee held its

meeting on 01.07.2023 and results of first stage examination were declared

wherein 108 candidates were selected for the post of Library Attendant and

151 for Laboratory Attendant. 2324 candidates were shortlisted for Stage-II

examination for the post of Assistant and 5870 + 30 for the post of Junior

Assistant/Junior Assistant (Store). In addition, an UFM Committee was also

constituted comprising two Professors, one of whom was from IIT, Delhi

and Director, NTA. This Committee found only two cases of impersonation

and recommended cancellation of the candidature, which was accepted by

the Result Committee. Even the recommendations of these two Committees

have been given a go by the University, proceeding forward on the basis an

informal interaction on 21.08.2023.

88. NTA has also demonstrated through log details that there was a time

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 58 of 62

lag between same questions answered by different candidates and in some

cases, the time lag spanned over 40 minutes ruling out any use of unfair

means and this crucial fact is completely overlooked by the Committee

constituted by the University. It is brought out that University’s evaluation

process failed to consider the audit logs, which provide insights into the

actual duration candidates spent on answering the questions and their seating

arrangement. Audit logs for a sample of 8 candidates divided into four

groups, from three different centres were scrutinized to validate the timing

of their identical same responses and analysis revealed that same answers

were provided with a time difference exceeding 40 minutes. The second

method of similarity analysis has been done by dividing the total number of

matching responses by total number of attempted questions, overlooking

that candidates may have attempted a varying number of questions, which

could lead to variations in the calculated percentage of similarity.

89. In the third method of analysis pertaining to incorrect same responses,

NTA conducted an analysis focusing on the incorrect responses in the case

of Laboratory Attendants carried out on the top 5 centres with the highest

number of selected candidates, using two approaches. Approach ‘A’

included identifying 5 candidates based on highest number of same incorrect

answers and each of the candidates was compared against another set of 10

candidates, who took the examination at the same centre and a huge time

difference was found centre-wise. In Approach ‘B’, 5 candidates were

identified, who had the highest number of incorrect answers and for these

question IDs were examined and the incorrect responses were compared to

those given by all candidates in the centre. To illustrate this position, several

charts were handed over by NTA showing the log details. Pertinently,

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 59 of 62

University did not even attempt to respond to this contention during the

course of hearing.

90. This Court is unable to find any flaw in the conduct of the

examination on any aspect which could lead to a conclusion that the process

is vitiated. No doubt, Clause 12 of Section ‘E’ of the Advertisement-cum-

‘Information Brochure & Guidelines for filling of Online Application form

for recruitment of Non-Teaching Positions in Delhi University’, for filling

the online application forms notified that in case of any inadvertent mistake

in the process of selection, which may be detected at any stage, even after

issuing an appointment letter, University reserved the right to modify/

withdraw/cancel any communication made to the applicant and/or that the

offer letters stipulated that the offers were provisional, but the facts and

circumstances obtaining in these cases, as noted above, do not warrant

cancellation of the examination and selected candidates deserve to be

appointed.

91. Heavy reliance was placed by the University on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Sachin Kumar (supra). The judgment is wholly

inapplicable to the present cases on facts. In the said case, as noted above,

there were serious complaints in the office of Chief Minister, GNCTD of

irregularities. Candidates securing high marks in Tier-I examination scored

extremely low marks in Tier-II examination. As a matter of fact, Committee

found that the mark list was dominated by particular section of the society

based on their surnames. There was no randomisation of seating

arrangements resulting in factually members of the same family sitting in

close proximity to each other in both Tier-I and Tier-II examination.

Committee also noted a racket leading to impersonation of candidates,

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 60 of 62

which involved an identified person who was the Chief Invigilator at a

particular centre connected with a coaching centre and was involved in

leakage of question paper. He repeatedly fixed his duty in a choice of centre

with the help of DSSSB staff. Besides, as a matter of fact, the Committee

found that videography was blurred, thumb impressions were

unrecognisable, jammers were not working properly and possibly flying

squad members were passing answers to candidates. None of these factors

even remotely exist in the present cases.

92. For the same reason, the judgment in Varun Bhardwaj (supra) is

distinguishable. In the said case, as a matter of fact, candidates were caught

using mobile phones while attempting to answer the question papers and

many of them confessed to using mobile phones/SMS texting the answers

even though they were sitting in different centres. In the said case, there was

no discussion of the security protocols during the conduct of examination as

is in the present case, which is a very crucial aspect of this case. Insofar as

the judgment of the Division Bench in Manish Dabas (supra) is concerned,

it does not aid the University. As a matter of fact, in the said case, use of

unfair means was found where two candidates were caught by invigilators at

the respective examination centres and mobile phones were recovered. One

of the two candidates had confessed that the last SMS message received on

his mobile phone consisted a set of numerals and it was proved that the

modus operandi was that keys of the answers to questions in the QPB were

received clandestinely in the form of sets of five digit numbers. The Scrutiny

Committee revealed that there was a unique pattern of bunching of

results/ranks. It was observed that in case of bunched cases not only the total

marks were the same but the marks secured in different segments also tallied

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 61 of 62

and the occurrence of such bunching could occur only when there was a

common source of information. In the present cases, it is not even the stand

of University that any gadget/mobile phone/blue tooth etc. was recovered

from any candidate in any suspected centre or that the jammers or other

security protocols were non-functional.

93. Having given a thoughtful consideration, this Court is of the view that

University has miserably failed in establishing use of any unfair means in

the examination in question and what comes to light is that by a process of

reverse engineering for motivated reasoning, by analysing a skewed data the

University is seeking to illegally justify its erroneous decision to shelve the

process of selection, which cannot be accepted. The process of hindsight

analysis adopted by the University by picking up a limited data of selected

candidates and attempting to match the incorrect responses is a dangerous

path to follow as by this process, any and every competitive examination

will become vulnerable, even in the absence of any material showing use of

unfair means and/or the modus operandi adopted by the candidates.

94. Accordingly, impugned Notifications dated 25.08.2023 and

29.08.2023 are quashed and set aside. University is directed to complete the

remaining formalities of document verification etc. and take the selection

process to its logical end. Upon appointment, Petitioners will be permitted to

join their respective places of postings forthwith and will be entitled to all

consequential benefits.

W.P. (C) No. 73/2024

95. Petitioners in this writ petition were shortlisted for Tier-II

examination for the posts of Assistant and Junior Assistant (Store), which

they were precluded from doing because the process was put on hold. In

W.P.(C) 15036/2023 & connected matters Page 62 of 62

view of the findings above, University is directed to proceed with the Tier-II

examination and permit the Petitioners to participate in the same. Further

course of action for these Petitioners will depend on the result of the Tier-II

examination.

96. All the writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid

terms along with pending applications.

97. Before drawing the curtains, I may pen down that because of the

arbitrary and illegal action of the University, Petitioners have lost nearly two

crucial years of their lives and careers. Some of the Petitioners had in fact

resigned from their earlier jobs when offer letters were received from the

University and many have become overage for appearing in any other

examination. This is a classic case of scant regard for fairness in action and

‘motivated reasoning” and the University must introspect!!!

JYOTI SINGH, J

MAY 30 , 2025/KA/Shivam