Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 446
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, JJ.
Preeti Bhardwaj and Others - Appellants
Versus
Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University and Others - Respondents
LPA Nos. 710, 745 of 2023, CM APPL. Nos. 54470, 54471, 59045 of 2023
Decided On : 19-08-2025
For the Appellants : Anurag Andley, Kshitij Arora, Aditya Andley, Tanmay Gupta, Sahil Nagar, Sachin Chauhan
For the Respondents: Shivendra Singh, Prakriti Rastogi, Varun Chugh, Nandita Mishra, B.S. Rawat
The court upheld the cancellation of a recruitment examination due to observed malpractice, highlighting the integrity of administrative actions. Judicial review is limited to ensuring no arbitrariness or mala fides.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Administrative action - Recruitment process - Challenge to the cancellation of Computer Based Recruitment Test (CBRT) by Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University due to alleged malpractices - High Court upheld the cancellation, citing the necessity to protect the integrity of the examination process. (Paras 3, 19)
(B) Judicial review - Scope of judicial review in cases of administrative decisions primarily limits to ensuring no arbitrariness, bias, or mala fides, to maintain integrity in recruitment processes. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The University issued an advertisement for 42 vacancies for Junior Assistant/Office Assistant, announcing exams and then cancelling the CBRT after allegations of malpractice. The Appellants' petitions challenging the cancellation were dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the cancellation of the CBRT was warranted to ensure the recruitment process's integrity due to observed malpractices. (Paras 19-20)
Issues: The main issues included the extent of malpractice observed and whether cancelling the entire examination was justified. (Paras 5-8)
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court ruled that based on the significant malpractice detected, the University's decision to cancel the CBRT was appropriate, reaffirming that judicial review does not substitute administrative decisions unless there is proof of mala fides or arbitrariness. (Para 19)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the cancellation of recruitment examination. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments around the validation of examination cancellation. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidence of malpractices during the examination. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. judicial review of administrative decisions. (Para 12 , 14 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. limits of court intervention in recruitment processes. (Para 13 , 16) |
| 6. distinctions in legal precedents based on examination scope. (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. concluding dismissal of the appeals. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The challenge in these Appeals is to the Orders dated 14.09.2023 and 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 15270/20222 and W.P. (C) No. 13486/2023 respectively, dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants herein and upholding the Notice bearing No. F.12(91)/DSEU/H.R./2022/1006-1015 dated 26.10.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1/University, by way of which the Computer Based Recruitment Test [“CBRT”] as conducted on 14.07.2022-15.07.2022 for the appointment of 48 vacancies of Junior Assistant/Office Assistant was cancelled.
2. Since there is a commonality of the subject-matter involved in the present appeals, that is, the Notice bearing No. F.12(91)/DSEU/H.R./2022/1006-1015 dated 26.10.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1/University, the present Appeals are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.
3. To the extent necessary and relevant, the facts leading to the filing of the present Appeals are as follows:-
a. The Respondent No. 1/University issued an Advertisement dated 01.11.2021, inviting applications for the post of Junior Assistant/Office Assistant. A total of 42 vacancies were advertised and the closing date for submitting the online application form was fixed for 20.12.2021.
b. The scheme of the examination was that the examination had to be conducted in two tiers that is, a written examination, followed by a CBRT. After clearing the same, the candidates would be short listed for the Skill/Typing test.
c. Initially, the examination was to be conducted on 21.03.2022, however, vide Notice dated 26.04.2022, the Respondent No.1/University cancelled the CBRT and subsequently vide Notice dated 17.06.2022, declared that the CRBT would be conducted on 14.07.2022 and 15.07.2022, following which fresh admit cards were issued and the roll numbers of the candidates remained the same as before.
d. After the CBRT was conducted on 14.07.2022 and 15.07.2022, the Respondent No.1/University declared a list of candidates who were shortlisted for the Skill/Typing Test which was to be conducted on 07.08.2022, and the Appellants herein had participated in the same e. A list of selected as well as waitlisted candidates was declared on 23.08.2022 by the Respondent No.1/University, and a total of 48 candidates were selected, while 156 candidates were kept in the waiting list. The Appellants were selected for the appointment to the post of Junior Assistant/Office Assistant.
f. Before the appointment letter could be issued to the Appellants, a Notice dated 26.10.2022 was issued whereby the Respondent No.1/University had cancelled the CBRT which was conducted on 14.07.2022 and 15.07.2022.
g. Two FIRs bearing No. 0090 dated 14.07.2022 at P.S. Cyber Police Station, Rohini and 0044 dated 27.07.2022 at P.S. Cyber Police Station, South-West, were lodged by the Respondent No.1/University, wherein the allegation was of suspected use of malpractice and unfair means at two examination centres where the CBRT was conducted.
h. Representations against the Notice dated 26.10.2022 were made by the Appellants by way of legal notices. When no reply was received from the Respondent No.1/University, the Appellants approached this Court by way of separate writ petitions, praying for the setting aside of the Notice dated 26.10.2022 and appropriate directions to the Respondent No.1/University for continuing the recruitment process for the post of Junior Assistant/Office Assistant. i. The lear
