Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 235

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Manish Garg, Judicial Member, B Anand, Administrative Member
Manjeet – Appellant
Versus
Staff Selection Commission – Respondent
O.A. No. 635/2022|O.A./2005/2022|O.A./1975/2022|O.A./1691/2022|O.A./2756/2023|O.A./3364/2023|O.A./481/2023|O.A./2177/2023|O.A./2546/2023|O.A./2778/2023|O.A./195/2024|O.A./374/2024|O.A./2734/2024|O.A./435/2024|O.A./1940/2023|O.A./1945/2023|O.A./454/2023|O.A./755/2023|O.A./1948/2023|O.A./5021/2024|O.A./2623/2023|O.A./2755/2023|O.A./1212/2023|O.A. No. 3534/2023|O.A. No. 4070/2023|O.A. No. 3611/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sachin Chauhan with Ms. Ridhi Dua and Mr. Akash Poddar, Mr. Ajesh Luthra, Mr. Akash Swami, Mr. Subodh Kumar Pathak with Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Mr. F. I. Choudhary with David Choudhary, Mr. Jatin Parashar, Mr. P K Singh, Mr. Subodh K Pathak, Mr. Bibek Tripathi, Mr. Vinod Soni, Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Mr. U Srivastava, Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Mr. Bijendra Singh Sharma, Mr. A K Singh, Mr. Abhishek Singh Sharma, Mr. B C Bhatt

Results of meritorious candidates for police posts cannot be released or provisional appointment granted when criminal investigation and trial for exam malpractices are pending, despite lack of individual notice, to uphold selection integrity.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Recruitment process - Withholding of results - Candidates qualified computer based examination and physical tests for uniformed posts - Results withheld for 625 candidates on suspicion of unfair means based on CCTV footage, log trails showing dual IP addresses, MAC IDs, de-mapping, abnormal answering patterns - Committee cleared 135, remaining 490 referred for criminal investigation leading to FIR, charge-sheets, cognizance by court - No specific individual allegations communicated, no show-cause notice - Principles of natural justice require hearing before adverse action, but pendency of criminal trial precludes interference - Doctrine of severability applies; tainted segregated from untainted - No indefeasible right to appointment merely by qualifying; integrity essential for disciplined forces - Provisional appointment denied as suspicions supported by investigation, arrests of venue staff, multiple cheating modes (screen sharing, answer keys, signals) - Results withheld justified pending criminal outcome; no relief at this stage (Paras 9, 9.1-9.14, 10).

(B) Criminal Investigation - Interference by Tribunal - Restraint where specialised agency involved, criminal court seized; observations may prejudice trial - Criminal matters' proof standard not applicable in service proceedings (Para 9.14).

Facts of the case:
Batch of OAs by candidates whose results withheld in final list for Constable (Executive) posts - Qualified all stages on merit - SSC withheld 625 results for scrutiny of suspected unfair means - 135 cleared and appointed; 490 flagged, FIR registered, investigation revealed systemic malpractices involving venue staff and technical manipulations - Applicants denied appointment pending probe.

Findings of Court:
Action not arbitrary; based on committee report, investigation material - Applicants at liberty to seek relief post-criminal proceedings outcome.

Issues: Whether results can be withheld pending investigation/criminal trial without specific allegations/hearing; entitlement to provisional appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of criminal proceedings with charge-sheets and cognizance precludes granting appointment/provisional relief; integrity paramount for police posts - Segregation of tainted/untainted valid; no interference with ongoing probe.

Result: OAs dismissed; liberty to approach afresh post-criminal resolution.

Table of Content
1. applicants challenge withheld results post-qualification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. ssc withholds 625 results for malpractice scrutiny. (Para 5)
3. applicants deny malpractice, seek provisional appointment. (Para 6)
4. oas dismissed; liberty to re-approach post-trial. (Para 10)

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J): -

Since common questions of fact and law arise in the present batch of O.As., they were heard together and are now being disposed of by way of this common order, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, O.A. No. 635/2022, titled “Manjeet & Ors. Vs. Union of India &

Ors.” (as amended), is being treated as the lead case.

2. By way of the present O.A., the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: -

“(i) To quash & set aside the final result of dated 15.12.2021 (List-II) in respect of applicants herein whereby the result of applicants (within 625 candidates) have been kept withheld on the ground of “for further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair means” in selection process to the post of Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination-2020 and to further direct the respondents that result of the applicants be declared forthwith and applicants be given appointment to the post of Constable (Exe) as per merit with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.

Or (ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicants.”

3. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a notice advertising recruitment for Constable (Executive) Male and Female in Delhi Police Examination–2020. The applicants, possessing all requisite eligibility with respect to age, educational qualifications, and category, applied for the said post. Thereafter, the applicants appeared in the Computer Based Examination conducted by the SSC. The result of the CBE was declared on 15.03.2021, wherein the applicants secured high marks on merit and were shortlisted for the next stage. Pursuant to notice dated 11.06.2021 issued by the respondents, the applicants downloaded their e-admit cards and appeared for the PE&MT. All the applicants successfully qualified the PE&MT stage.The SSC declared the Final Result on 15.12.2021. While declaring the list of selected candidates, the SSC published a separate List–II containing the names of 625 candidates (including the applicants), whose results were kept withheld for ―further scrutiny by the Commission regarding suspected use of unfair means.‖

3.1 Learned counsel also submitted that aggrieved thereby, several applicants submitted representations seeking clarification regarding the specific reasons for withholding their results. Some applicants also filed RTI applications, to which, according to the applicants, the SSC gave vague replies stating that the matter was under scrutiny. Despite qualifying on merit and in the absence of any specific instance of malpractice attributed to them, the applicants were denied appointment. Consequently, the applicants approached this Tribunal by filing the O.A. No. 635/2022, seeking the directions to declare their results and to issue appointment letters.

3.2 Learned counsel also submitted that during the pendency of this OA, the SSC issued a Notice dated 06.04.2022, clearing the results of 135 out of 625 withheld candidates. As a result, original Applicant Nos.1 (Vikas Jhajharia), 2 (Mohit), 5 (Manjeet), and 9 (Rahul Kumar) were cleared and appointed. The remaining applicants continue to await declaration of their results, which remain withheld on the basis of mere suspicion.Subsequent to filing of the Original Application No.635/2022, several other Original Applications, including O.A. No. 1691/2022 and O.A. No. 1975/2022were filed before this Tribunal by similarly situated candidates. These

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 235

Results of meritorious candidates for police posts cannot be released or provisional appointment granted when criminal investigation and trial for exam malpractices are pending, despite lack of individual notice, to uphold selection integrity.

Cases Referred (2)