The need for the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice before approaching the court.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. No one was present for the petitioner on the first call. No one is present for the petitioner even on the second call although it is 2.45 P.M. I am hence proceeding to dispose of the writ petition on merits.

2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner impugns the show cause notice dated 27.1.2015 issued by the respondent no.1. By the show cause notice, petitioner has been called upon to explain his case, as to why the petitioner’s candidature should not be cancelled and the petitioner be prevented from appearing in Staff Selection Commission’s examinations for three years on account of unfair means indulged by him in the examination conducted by the respondent no.2 on 15.4.2012. The show cause notice dated 27.1.2015 reads as under:-

“F.No.2/26/2015-ND-1/Legal

Government of India

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region)

BLOCK NO.12,CGO COMPLEX

LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003

Dated: 27-01-2015

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

Whereas Shri Ajay Kumar son of Shri Ravinder Singh, resident of Village- Rampuri, Tehsil & Distt.- Rewal, Haryana was a candidate of Food Corporation of India Examination, 2012. He appeared for the said examination under Roll No. 2405500017.

2. Whereas Shri Ajay Kumar appeared in Paper-II of the above mentioned examination on 15.4.2012

3. Whereas the Commission, with a view to protecting the integrity of the selection process and to prevent candidates who are found to indulge in unfair means in such examination from entering into government service through manipulative practices, carried out post examination analysis of performance of the candidates with the help of experts who have proven this expertise in the same field.

4. In the multiple choices objective type test used by SSC there are 4 choices/alternative answers in each question out of which only one is the right answer and other three are wrong answers. As far as possible all choices are made attractive enough, therefore, if the candidate does not happen to know the correct answer he would select one of the three wrong answers by chance. Thus, probability of picking a particular wrong answer is out of 3 or 1/3 or 0.33. Similarly, if the other candidate of the pair also does not happen to know the right answer to the same question, he would also happen to select one of the 3 wrong answers. Therefore, the occurrence of one question with identical wrong answer by a pair of candidates will be =1/9=(1/3)2=(0.33)2. Similarly, the probability of a pair of candidates having 2 question with identical wrong answers would be (0.33)2*(0.33)2=(0.33)4. If it is continued in the same way, the probability of the pair making wrong answers to 12 question will be (0.33)24 i.e.0.0000000000027. The probability of the pair making 7 wrong answers will be (0.33)14 i.e. 0.0000002 and 6 wrong answers will be (0.33)12 i.e. 0.0000018. It means that one can be certain that such an event just cannot occur by chance. In case such a matching has taken place it clearly indicates collusion amongst the candidates.

5. Whereas it emerged during such scrutiny and analysis that Shri Ajay Kumar had resorted to malpractice/unfair means in association with Shri Pukhraj, Shri Rahul Yadav, Mainpal, Ms. Nagina and Prabhu Day in Paper-I and Paper-II. The analytical data clearly showed abnormally high matching of answer responses of Shri, Ajay Kumar with other candidates. Details of matching of their answer responses are given below.

Paper-I

Sh. Ajay Kumar, Roll No. 2405500017- Shri Pukhraj Roll No. 2405026460

Paper-II

(a) Sh. Ajay Kumar, Roll No. 2405500017- Shri Pukhraj Roll No.2402500092