Back
Quashes SSC's 7-Year of Candidate Over Allegations
The has set aside the 's decision to cancel a candidate's candidature and debar her for seven years, ruling that the authorities must prove against each individual candidate rather than applying a .
A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Vinod Kumar dismissed the SSC's writ petition challenging the 's order that had restored the candidature of Himanshi, a candidate in the Combined Higher Secondary Level (10+2) Examination, .
The court found that the key allegation—that Himanshi had shifted to a compromised terminal—was unsupported by evidence, as the terminal she used was not among those identified as compromised by the SSC's own scrutiny committee.
The Case Background
Himanshi, an OBC candidate, appeared for the Tier-I Computer Based Examination at , Haridwar, on . She scored 199.21 out of 200—well above the cut-off—and subsequently cleared Tier-II and Tier-III. After document verification, her result was withheld along with 103 other candidates.
In , the SSC issued a show cause notice alleging that Himanshi had resorted to by shifting from her allotted terminal to a compromised one, and then cancelling her candidature and debarring her for seven years. The SSC relied on a scrutiny committee report that analysed log trails and CCTV footage.
Himanshi approached the , which quashed the action against her. The SSC then appealed to the .
Arguments Presented
SSC's Contentions: , representing the , argued that the committee had conducted a thorough examination of log trails and CCTV footage. He pointed to Himanshi's answering pattern—attempting only 15 questions in the first 29 minutes on her original terminal with 9 incorrect, but answering 85 questions correctly in just 21 minutes on the shifted terminal—as evidence of .
He submitted that the abnormal performance, combined with the fact that she did not complain about her original terminal, justified the committee's finding.
Himanshi's Defence: Senior Counsel countered that the SSC's investigation was arbitrary and lacked concrete evidence. He highlighted that over 44,000 candidates were demapped across India, yet only 90 were scrutinised. He pointed out that the MAC address of the terminal Himanshi was shifted to was not among the compromised terminals listed in Annexure-5 of the committee's own report.
Mittal further argued that the committee's report was filled with —"seems", "appears", "probably"—and did not constitute .
Legal Analysis: Court's Scrutiny of the Committee Report
The High Court examined the scrutiny committee's report in detail and found it inadequate to support the action against Himanshi.
The court noted that while of such expert committees requires restraint, it is not entirely barred. Relying on precedents including and , the court acknowledged that can suffice in cases.
However, the court found that none of the determinative factors identified by the committee itself were satisfied in Himanshi's case. Crucially, the rejoinder affidavit filed by the SSC revealed that the MAC address of the terminal to which Himanshi was shifted—D4BED9CCAA34B—was not among the four compromised terminals at Avirat listed in Annexure-5.
"This single factor, by itself, is sufficient to discredit the finding that Himanshi had resorted to
,"
the court held.
The court also noted contradictions between the committee report and the rejoinder regarding the number of questions attempted and time taken, reflecting .
Key Observations
The court made several pointed observations that underscored its reasoning:
"There is a rarefied stratosphere of cases in which, even with the greatest degree of circumspection, it is not possible to sustain the decision of the Committee."
"The authorities would have to establish, in respect of each of the allegedly delinquent candidates, that she, or he, employed ."
"If the initial terminal was in fact defective, one cannot compare the performance of the candidate on that terminal with the performance of the candidate on a properly working terminal…One cannot be penalised for performing well."
The court further noted that the committee's report was filled with tentative observations—"seems", "appears", "probably"—and lacked conclusive findings.
Court's Decision and Implications
The High Court dismissed the SSC's writ petition and upheld the CAT's order restoring Himanshi's candidature. The court directed the SSC to pass consequential orders within four weeks.
However, the court clarified that this judgment is limited to Himanshi's case. The SSC has filed separate petitions for other candidates, which will be adjudicated individually.
The ruling reinforces the principle that when authorities choose to penalise specific candidates for , they must provide clear evidence against each individual. A "one size fits all" approach, as the court stated, is "totally contrary to law."
This decision serves as a significant check on the powers of examination bodies, requiring them to back their allegations with concrete, candidate-specific evidence rather than relying on generalised suspicions or patterns.
