19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

"Fairness is the utmost object of any examination and under no circumstance can it be permitted to be compromised", Allahabad High Court has upheld the cancellation of the written examination result for 910 posts of Assistant Professors in aided non-Government Post Graduate Colleges in Uttar Pradesh, holding that STF findings linking 19 successful candidates to accused persons — combined with charge sheets establishing leakage of papers of at least five subjects — satisfied the probability test for systemic irregularity justifying cancellation of the entire result.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, disposing of a batch of 16 writ petitions filed by 224 petitioners, held that unlike Pan-India examinations, even limited irregularities in a narrow-campus examination for 910 posts justify cancellation of the entire result when full segregation of beneficiaries is not possible.

Background of the Case

The UP Education Service Selection Commission conducted a written examination on 16th and 17th April 2025 for 910 Assistant Professor posts across 33 subjects at 52 centres in six districts. Two FIRs were lodged within days of the examination alleging that question papers were sold to candidates for money. Despite this, the Commission proceeded to evaluate answer sheets and declared the result on 4 September 2025.

The STF investigation identified 21 suspicious mobile numbers linked to arrested accused — including one Mahboob Ali, who was posted as confidential assistant to the then Chairman of the Commission and had access to papers during the moderation and preparation process. Cross-referencing these numbers with the declared result revealed that all 19 connected candidates had passed in their respective subjects. Two charge sheets were filed on 8 June 2025 — well before the result was declared — under Sections 112, 308(5) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for petty organised crime, extortion and cheating.

Despite this, the result was declared in September 2025. The Commission subsequently cancelled it vide notice dated 20 January 2026 and published a fresh examination schedule.

Court's Observations and Judgment

On the Standard of Proof for Cancellation

The Court firmly rejected the petitioners' argument that the State needed to prove paper leak beyond reasonable doubt before cancelling the result. Applying the law settled by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025), the Court held that the probability test governs — not proof beyond reasonable doubt:

"It is not necessary that malpractice is required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the present case, not only were two FIRs lodged but after investigation two charge sheets were filed. A possibility is not ruled out that papers were leaked to other candidates also. The impugned decision is therefore justified by the probability test."

On Why the Vanshika Yadav (NEET) Principle Does Not Apply

The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court's NEET ruling in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (2024) to argue that localised unfairness was insufficient to cancel an entire examination. The Court distinguished it squarely — NEET is a Pan-India examination involving lakhs of candidates where a localised irregularity would not taint the entire process. The present examination was confined to Uttar Pradesh for only 910 seats across 52 centres. The Court held:

"In a narrow-campus examination of this nature, even irregularities committed by a few candidates would be a case to quash the entire examination, subject to inquiry and supported materials."

On Segregation and the Rights of Untainted Candidates

The Court acknowledged the principle that innocent candidates should not suffer for the wrongs of others. However, it found that full segregation was not possible here — the STF found 19 confirmed beneficiaries but expressly did not rule out wider leakage. Given that papers of at least five subjects were leaked and the accused had access to papers during the moderation and preparation stage itself, the contamination could not be ring-fenced to 19 candidates.

On Whether Petitioners Had Any Vested Right

The Court further held that the selection process was not complete — only the written examination result had been declared; the interview stage had not commenced. The petitioners could not claim to have been finally selected:

"A candidate has no indefeasible right to be selected or to force the State to conclude an examination process which was tainted since papers of written examination were leaked and candidates were benefited."

The writ petitions were disposed of and the cancellation upheld. The Court noted that a fresh written examination schedule had already been published and the petitioners remained at liberty to participate. The ruling affirms that in smaller, State-level examinations, the threshold for cancellation of an entire tainted result is considerably lower than in Pan-India examinations — and that charge sheets combined with an STF report linking successful candidates to accused is sufficient to meet the probability test.

Date of Decision: 17 March 2026