Judgment Based on Unauthenticated, Unattested Reports Liable to be Re-examined: Rajasthan High Court Stays Cancellation of SI Recruitment. - 2025-09-08

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court Stays Order Cancelling Sub-Inspector Recruitment, Cites Reliance on 'Unauthentic' Reports

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has put a hold on a single-judge order that had nullified the entire recruitment process for Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders. A division bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit raised serious concerns over the single judge's reliance on unauthenticated and unattested documents to arrive at the decision to scrap the selections.

The bench, while issuing an interim stay on the judgment dated August 28, 2025, noted that the foundation of the earlier order rested on evidence that was not properly authenticated or submitted through an affidavit.

Background of the Case

The appeals, led by Amar Singh, challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge which had cancelled the entire selection process for Sub-Inspectors conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). The cancellation order was primarily based on allegations of irregularities, supported by several documents presented by the original writ petitioners.

However, the division bench took issue with the evidentiary basis of this far-reaching decision.

Court's Scrutiny of Unverified Evidence

The division bench pointed out several critical flaws in the documents relied upon by the Single Judge:

• Unattested SIT Report: A report dated 13.08.2024, purportedly from Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, IPS, the head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT), was a key piece of evidence. The court noted this report was not submitted with a supporting affidavit from Mr. Singh, was not obtained via an RTI, and was not in the public domain. The petitioners could not explain how they obtained this confidential document.
• Unverified Police Letter: A letter from the Director General of Police dated 22.08.2024 was also placed on record without any supporting affidavit from the signatory.
• Media Reports as Evidence: The Single Judge had also relied on recommendations from a Cabinet Ministers' Committee dated 10.10.2024, which were cited based on media reports rather than official records.

Pivotal Observations from the Bench

In its order, the court expressed its apprehension about the nature of the evidence used to cancel a major public recruitment process. The bench stated:

"Considering that the issue involves cancellation of a selection process conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) and the reports relied upon have remained unattested and also considering that there are scathing remarks as against the Members of the Public Service Commission based on such unauthentic report, the judgment would be required to be re-examined on the entire aspects afresh by us."

This observation highlights the court's concern that judicial decisions, especially those with significant public consequences and remarks against constitutional bodies like the RPSC, must be based on authenticated and verifiable evidence.

Final Decision and Its Implications

The division bench has issued notices to the respondents and scheduled the next hearing for October 8, 2025. In the interim, the court passed two significant directions:

• Stay on Cancellation: The effect and operation of the single judge's judgment dated 28.08.2025 are stayed until the next hearing. This effectively revives the selection list, at least for now.
• No Field Postings: While the selected candidates will not be given field postings, they are permitted to continue with and participate in their training. This balances the interests of the selected candidates with the ongoing legal scrutiny of the recruitment process.

The Advocate General has been requested to assist the court in the matter. This ruling underscores the critical importance of procedural propriety and the admissibility of evidence in writ petitions, setting a precedent that sweeping judicial orders cannot be founded on unverified or unofficially obtained documents.