With SC hearing NEET-UG exam pleas, recalling what it said earlier on recruitment irregularities

As Bhardwaj said, the affidavit does not contain specific rebuttals to each of the petitioners’ claims. However, it heavily relies upon a 2021 judgment authored by one of the presiding judges (Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud) in Sachin Kumar & Ors v Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors. In that case, the court explained there is a “spectrum” of responses in cases dealing with irregularities in selection or recruitment processes.

What did the court hold in that case and will it impact the NEET case?

What was the 2021 case?

Between June 2014 and July 2015, the DSSSB conducted a recruitment process to fill 231 ‘Head Clerk’ vacancies in the Services Department of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). It comprised two levels — a preliminary examination to shortlist candidates (Tier-I) and a main examination (Tier-II).

Over 62,000 candidates applied after the DSSSB issued an advertisement inviting applications in 2009. According to the judgment, there was no explanation for the delay between the issue of advertisement and the exam being conducted. In June 2014, only 8,224 candidates took the Tier-I exam. Of them, 4,712 candidates were from Delhi.

The DSSSB received several complaints alleging serious irregularities in both tiers of the recruitment process. These included accusations of candidate impersonation, relatives seated close to each other at the examination centre, and question paper leaks. In September 2015, a report from a committee formed by the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi found irregularities, including evidence of candidate impersonation within a specific “zone of consideration”.

In December 2015, the Deputy CM directed the DSSSB to verify candidates from this zone and lodge an FIR if any impersonators were found. Of the 290 candidates from this zone, nine did not report for verification and “serious” concerns were raised for seven others.

In March 2016, the DSSSB noted that these findings — limited to a single “zone” — “clearly indicate that the examination process has been vitiated”. The Deputy CM issued a notification cancelling the entire process that same month.

What SC said on dealing with irregularities in recruitment

Six candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2015. The CAT adjudicates disputes concerning recruitment and conditions of service of people appointed to public services and posts.

Challenging the Deputy CM’s notification, the six candidates argued that allegations of irregularities were made by unsuccessful candidates hoping for a re-examination. In February 2017, the tribunal set aside the Deputy CM’s Order, stating that of the 290 candidates, 281 “were free from blame”.

It held that cancelling the entire process should be a “last resort” and an effort should be made to separate the “tainted” from the “untainted” candidates first.

On an appeal from the DSSSB and the GNCTD, the Delhi High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision, leading to an appeal at the Supreme Court. The SC then observed there is a “spectrum” of responses in dealing with such irregularities.

On one end of the spectrum, if the irregularities take place at a “systemic level”, affecting the “credibility and legitimacy of the process”, the authority (such as the DSSSB here) has “no option but to cancel it (the examination or the recruitment process) in its entirety” as it may be difficult to separate the tainted and untainted candidates.

Then there are cases where only some candidates are guilty and can be separated from the rest to ensure “those who are innocent of wrong-doing should not pay for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities.” The court noted that this formed a part of creating a “fair and reasonable process”, a “fundamental requirement” of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court found “serious flaws” in the DSSSB’s recruitment process. This included a five-year delay in conducting the exam, significantly reduced turnout compared to the number of applications, admit cards being issued only through electronic means, and a large portion of candidates hailing from “a particular area of Delhi”.

Considering these factors which “erode the credibility of… the recruitment process”, the court reversed the tribunal and Delhi High Court decisions, scrapping the entire exercise as stated in the Deputy CM’s notification.

How this could impact NEET-UG 2024

The Supreme Court has already begun applying these principles in the NEET case. As reported by The Indian Express, the bench led by CJI Chandrachud asked the National Testing Agency (NTA) if it was possible to segregate the beneficiaries of the paper leak from the untainted students who wrote the exam or if the alleged breach happened at a systemic level.

The NTA’s response and the CBI update on the investigation into the leak are set to be heard by the Supreme Court next on July 11.