In a landmark judgment, Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh of the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed the importance of fairness and transparency in public recruitment processes. Declaring that the sanctity of such examinations cannot be compromised by corruption or systemic irregularities, the court ruled on the controversial Desh Raj Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Special Appeal No. 231 of 2023].
Background of the Case
The Ziledari Qualifying Examination was conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation and Water Resources Department in November 2018 to promote Seench Parveshaks to the position of Ziledar, under the Irrigation Department Ziledars Services Rules, 1963. Out of 490 candidates, 318 were declared successful.
However, complaints soon surfaced, alleging malpractices including manipulation in the evaluation process and demands for illegal gratification. The gravity of the allegations prompted the government to establish multiple inquiry committees, which eventually concluded that systemic corruption had tainted the examination. Consequently, the state canceled the examination on July 26, 2019.
Aggrieved by the cancellation, the appellants, who were successful candidates, filed writ petitions challenging the decision. While the initial writ petition allowed by the court in 2021 directed the state to distinguish tainted candidates from untainted ones, further inquiries failed to achieve such segregation, reigniting the dispute.
Legal Issues
The court addressed the following critical legal issues:
1. Sanctity and Transparency in Recruitment: Whether the decision to cancel the examination was justified given the scale of irregularities.
2. Principles of Equality under Articles 14 and 16: Whether canceling the entire examination unduly penalized untainted candidates, violating their constitutional rights.
3. Compliance with Previous Orders: Whether the state complied with earlier court directives to segregate the tainted candidates from the untainted.
Court’s Observations
Delivering the judgment, Justice Jaspreet Singh underscored the constitutional mandate for fairness and impartiality in public employment, stating:
“Selection for public employment must be fair, impartial, and in accordance with the provisions of recruitment rules and the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. If there are systemic irregularities, corruption, and malpractices, the selection process would get vitiated.”
The court noted that multiple inquiry reports confirmed large-scale discrepancies in the evaluation of answer sheets, including inflated marks and undue favoritism by members of the selection committee. Justice Singh further emphasized:
“Any recruitment process to public posts should be beyond suspicion. Corruption in public employment would be against the constitutional goal of equality of status and opportunity.”
The Judgment
The court upheld the state’s decision to cancel the 2018 examination, ruling that the irregularities were systemic and rendered the entire process illegitimate. It found that distinguishing between tainted and untainted candidates was impractical due to the widespread nature of the malpractices.
The court dismissed the appellants’ argument that the examination could have been salvaged by re-evaluating answer sheets. Referring to precedent, Justice Singh stated:
“Where large-scale irregularities vitiate an examination, the integrity of the process must be preserved by canceling it, even at the cost of inconvenience to innocent candidates.”
Representation and Parties
The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate H.G.S. Parihar, assisted by Advocate Meenakshi Singh Parihar, while Standing Counsel Anand Kumar Singh appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh.
