Fraudulent misrepresentation of qualifications can render selection and appointment void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant petitions raise issues interconnected, analogous and akin to each other, as such, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

WP(C) No. 1893/2020

(1) Facts as emerging from the petition

- The respondents issued a notification in March 2016 inviting online applications from eligible candidates for participation in examination for award of Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and for determining the eligibility for appointment of Lectures (NET) in subjects falling under the faculty of Science and Technology. The petitioner applied in the response to the notification for grant of Lectureship of NET in Mathematical Science. The petitioner participated in the examination under Roll No. 432411and came to be provided Question Booklet Series-C.

- The result of the examination came to be declared in the month of November-December 2016 and petitioner shown to have not qualified having secured 47.38% marks against the cut-off merit of 49.39%.

- The petitioner is stated to have submitted objections to the declaration of result in respect of answers indicated in the answer key uploaded by the respondents on their website and sought correction of the answer of Question No. 75 in the Question Booklet Series-C, whereafter the petitioner came to be asked to submit an opinion of experts from different three institutes which opinion is stated to have been submitted on 12.12.2016 unanimously opining therein that the answer to the Question No. 75 is option ‘B’ & ‘C’, thus, suggesting the key of the respondents for evaluation of answer to the Question No. 75 not correct.

- The respondents are stated to have assured the petitioner for effecting necessary correction upon re-evaluation in his result which is stated to have not been done by them despite submitting of multiple representations by him and upon the failure of the respondents, the instant petition came to be filed by the petitioner for commanding the respondents to treat the answer given to Question No. 75 given by the petitioner as correct in view of the opinion of the experts and consequentially re-evaluate the answer script of the petitioner and issue relevant certificate for Lectureship (NET)m in his favour.

(2) Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein it is being admitted that the petitioner appeared as an examinee under general category in response to the notification issued by the respondents for conducting of eligibility for Lectureship and that the said examination came to be held on 19.06.2016, wherein a total number of 136039 candidates appeared and upon evaluation of the answer sheets electronically, results came to be declared on 07.10.2016 showing the petitioner to have obtained 94.75 marks corresponding to 47.38% being below than the cut-off fixed for general category for both Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Lectureship being 54.88% and 49.39% respectively, as a result whereof the petitioner did not qualify the said examination.

It is being further stated that the assertion of the petitioner for re-evaluation of his answer book on the plea of wrong key is factually and legally wrong, while it is being admitted that a representation came to be received by the respondents from the petition with respect to Question No. 75 of Series-C and Question No. 72 of Series-A and upon examination and on the basis of expert opinion, the representation so submitted were found to have no merit, thus, not necessitating any change in answer key of the questions.

It is being further stated that in order to ensure that there are no errors with respect to either the question papers or the answer key, representations were invited by the respondents from the candidates from 15.07.2016 upto 20.07.2016 and after considering the said representations, so received, an exercise came to be undertaken post conduct of examination but before final declaration