MANISH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner challenging the action of respondent no.6 in cancelling the result of the recruitment examination, 2012 and debarring the petitioners from undertaking examination being conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi, for a period of 3 years. Relevant facts to decide the controversy as hands are that the petitioner had appeared in the recruitment examination held in the year 2012 pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.02.2012, for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner had appeared in the optional test conducted in the year 2012.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that he is fully eligible for being appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector in CISF and CAPF as per his own merit. Had his result been finalised by the respondent i.e. recruiting agency, he would have got selected. It appears that post examination, a show cause notice dated 8.7.2013 was served on the petitioner which is at page '37' of the paper book. A perusal of the said notice indicates that the result of the petitioner has been withheld on the ground that he had used unfair means in the written examination paper which was an objective type multiple choice question paper. The allegations are that post examination scrutiny and analysis performance of the candidates in objective type multiple choice question paper with the help of expert had proven that the petitioner had resorted to copying in the said examination in association with other candidates who also took the same examination.

(3.) The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to explain as to why his candidature be not cancelled and he may not be debarred for a period of 3 years from appearing in the examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. Submission of the petitioner is that the explanation had been offered by him by writing a reply to the show cause notice which had not been adverted to, rather the decision to debar the petitioner for a period of 3 years had been taken solely with reference to the same report which was made basis to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. It is contended that order dated 4.12.2013 does not even give indication of the incriminating material found against the petitioner which would implicate him in the alleged misconduct of mass-copying in the recruitment examination 2012. The order impugned only reiterates the allegations in the show cause notice which read as under:-