Mere Suspicion Cannot Derail a Lawful Selection—Systemic Malaise Must Be Proven, Not Presumed: Punjab & Haryana High Court in Challenge to Senior Assistant Recruitment

“Identical Wrong Answers, Regional Clustering, and Past Exam Failures Are Not Proofs of Fraud—Judicial Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Mass Cheating or Paper Leak”, In a detailed and emphatic ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash the entire recruitment process for Senior Assistant-cum-Inspector posts under Advertisement No. 6 of 2023, rejecting allegations of paper leak, mass copying, and systemic fraud as “founded on conjecture and post-result dissatisfaction.”

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled that “merely pointing to suspicious answer patterns or regional concentration of successful candidates does not establish that the sanctity of the examination has been compromised at a systemic level.” The Court held that a “proportionate judicial response demands evidence of pervasive illegality rendering segregation of tainted and untainted candidates impossible,” a threshold not met in the instant case.

“Court Will Not Quash Exams Based on Social Media Speculation—Hard Evidence Is a Prerequisite for Judicial Intervention”

The petitioners had alleged that the written examination conducted on 28.01.2024 was marred by widespread irregularities, including:

• Circulation of top 44 candidates’ OMR sheets on social media,
• Identical wrong answers among toppers,
• An unusual number of high scorers from specific districts (notably Mansa), and
• Suspicious familial or local linkages among the top rankers.

They sought a complete cancellation of the selection process, a fresh examination, and criminal investigation into alleged malpractices.

However, the Court observed:

“A petitioner seeking cancellation of an examination bears a heavy onus to establish that the process stood vitiated by fraud and that there exists credible and cogent material demonstrating a systemic taint or illegality going to the very root of the selection process.”

It held that the petitioners failed to place any such material and relied instead on statistical anomalies and speculative inferences.

“Similarity in Wrong Answers Can Flow from Common Preparation or Exam Stress—Not Necessarily Malpractice”

One of the most serious allegations was that several top scorers gave the same incorrect answers to multiple questions, including those that appeared “easy.”

The Court, however, relying on the findings of a judicial inquiry conducted by a retired High Court Judge, held that:

“The similarity in certain answer patterns can reasonably be attributed to common preparation sources and does not, in itself, establish wrongdoing.”

The forensic analysis of the OMR sheets ruled out common authorship or impersonation, and there was no evidence of tampering, communication devices, or access to answer keys.

Further, the Court noted:

“Objective-type examinations often see convergence in wrong answers due to similar elimination strategies or shared training methods.”

The Court observed that the alleged pattern was limited to just 45 out of 27,764 candidates, and even those appeared at different centres across multiple districts, with no roll-number proximity or seating pattern suggestive of collusion.

“Judicial Inquiry Deserves Deference—Report Found No Procedural Irregularity, No External Interference, and Full Transparency”

The inquiry report dated 24.06.2025, placed in a sealed cover and taken on record by the Court, was described as “methodical, evidence-based, and reasoned.”

Justice Brar observed:

“Where allegations rest on disputed questions of fact and are examined by a fact-finding inquiry, courts should exercise restraint. A reasoned report by a former Judge deserves due deference in the absence of perversity or mala fides.”

The inquiry considered every major allegation—including poor past performance of candidates, their age, regional concentration, and possible family ties—and rejected them as insufficient grounds to presume malpractice.

On the issue of many toppers being from District Mansa, the report noted:

“This may be attributed to a growing focus on education, increasing access to learning resources, and a competitive academic environment of that area. The consistent performance of candidates from a particular area should not automatically be seen as suspicious.”

“Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar Do Not Apply—No Sophisticated Tech, No Widespread Leak, No Inability to Identify Wrongdoers”

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s landmark judgments in Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar, which were heavily relied upon by the petitioners.

“In Tanvi Sarwal, there was irrefutable evidence of question paper leak through WhatsApp before the exam and use of micro-SIM vests for communication. No such technology or network has surfaced in the present case.”

“In Sachin Kumar, there was proven impersonation and manipulation of seating plans, and a systemic dilution of security. None of those facts exist here.”

Instead, the High Court placed reliance on the recent three-judge bench ruling in Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court reiterated that:

“Cancellation of an examination is justified only where the sanctity of the process is compromised at a systemic level. The guiding principle is whether it is impossible to separate the tainted from the untainted.”

Justice Brar held that in the present case:

“There is no credible material showing widespread dissemination of answer keys, use of cheating networks, or collusion during the conduct of the examination… the petitioners’ allegations remain speculative.”

“Failure on Merit Cannot Be Dressed Up as Fraud Allegations”—Court Cautions Against Weaponizing Judicial Process Post Result

The Court also took note of the fact that none of the petitioners scored well enough to be in the zone of consideration for the typing test, and that they did not appear before the Inquiry Officer despite being given notice.

Justice Brar remarked:

“The petitioners have raised baseless allegations without any cogent material… rooted in post-result dissatisfaction after failure on merit.”

In this context, the Court reiterated the constitutional principle under Articles 14 and 16, that “a fair and reasonable process is a requirement of equality of opportunity, but fairness cannot be invoked to derail a process unless proven illegality taints its core.”

Recruitment Process Upheld—Interim Stay Vacated, No Direction for Re-exam or Criminal Probe

In conclusion, the Court held:

“The recruitment process does not suffer from any systemic malaise that would justify its cancellation… The allegations have already been thoroughly investigated and rejected by a retired High Court Judge. No ground for interference is made out.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the interim relief granted on 22.12.2025 was vacated.

The original inquiry report was directed to be returned to the State, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision: 21 January 2026