A candidate's right to selection cannot override the necessity for a fair examination process; substantial evidence of systemic irregularity justifies cancellation of examination results.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Petitioners, in present bunch of writ petitions, have participated in a recruitment process initiated in pursuance of Advertisement No. 51 of year 2022 to fill up 910 posts of Assistant Professors in different aided non-Government Post Graduate Colleges.

2. U.P. Education Service Selection Commission issued a schedule for written examination which was held on 16^th / 17^th April, 2025 in two shifts at 52 different Examination Centers in six Districts for 33 different Subjects.

3. Immediately after the written examinations, two First Information Reports, being FIR No. 0144 dated 20.04.2025 and FIR No. 0181 dated 21.04.2025, were lodged at Police Stations Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow East and Chinhat, Lucknow East, against four persons, alleging that accused were involved in providing question papers of written examination to the participants after taking huge money.

4. In pursuance of above First Information Reports, investigation was commenced and at highest level of State such irregularities were taken note of, as to whether continue with examination process or not. A decision was taken to commence evaluation process vide a notification dated 24.07.2025. It appears that the decision was taken in pursuance of a Three Members Committee’s report.

5. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Yasin, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that in pursuance of aforesaid decision the Commission issued result of written examination and according to petitioners they stood in merit in the result and were awaiting for interview schedule.

6. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that a notice dated 20.01.2026 was issued by Secretary, U.P. Education Services Selection Commission, Prayagraj, whereby it was communicated that result issued on 04.09.2025 was cancelled and a fresh schedule for written examination was published.

7. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that State has no substantial material to cancel the entire result of written examination since there was no evidence of systematic irregularities so much as that purity of entire selection was compromised. He also referred documents placed alongwith counter affidavit, specifically a report dated 02.01.2026 submitted by Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order/ S.T.F., Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and for reference the same, in its entirety, is reproduced hereinafter:

8. Learned Senior Advocate, by referring the above report, submitted that aforesaid report does not come to a specific conclusion that 19 selected students were benefited by accused persons by providing question papers, in advance. In the report there was only a reference of phone numbers of said 19 candidates having connection with accused which would not be sufficient to quash entire result of written examination and, at best, result of said 19 selected candidates could be cancelled.

9. Learned Senior Advocate also referred contents of First Information Reports that it would not be sufficient to quash the entire result of written examination. In support of above submission learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India and others , (2024)2 SCC 743 and for reference relevant paragraphs thereof are reproduced hereinafter:

“67. In arriving at a conclusion as to wh