DSSSB Recruitment Cancellation: Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Government’s Decision

The case of Sachin Kumar & Ors. vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors. revolves around the recruitment process for the post of Head Clerk (Grade-II DASS) in the Delhi Government. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the cancellation of the recruitment process due to alleged malpractices was justified.

Background of the Case

In 2009, the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) issued an advertisement for the recruitment of 231 vacancies for the post of Head Clerk. Due to administrative delays, the Tier-I examination was conducted only in 2014, with 62,056 applications received but only 8,224 candidates appearing for the examination.

Complaints regarding irregularities in the selection process surfaced soon after the exams were conducted. Allegations included:

Leakage of question papers.
Mass cheating and impersonation.
Unjustifiable concentration of selected candidates from specific geographical areas.
Unexplained high scores in Tier-I followed by extremely low scores in Tier-II.

These allegations led to an inquiry by the Vigilance Department, which submitted two reports confirming serious malpractices. The Delhi Government canceled the recruitment process on March 15, 2016, prompting affected candidates to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and later the Delhi High Court.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court examined the following questions:

Was the cancellation of the recruitment process justified?
Could the untainted candidates be separated from the tainted ones?
Did the Delhi Government’s decision violate principles of fairness and equal opportunity?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (Sachin Kumar & Others, Affected Candidates):

The entire recruitment process should not be scrapped as it unfairly punishes innocent candidates.
The Delhi Government should have only disqualified candidates involved in malpractices instead of canceling the entire process.
The High Court’s decision to confine relief only to the six applicants before the CAT was unjust.

The Supreme Court noted the petitioner’s argument: “Cancelling the entire recruitment process without attempting to segregate the tainted candidates is arbitrary and unfair.”

Respondent’s Arguments (Delhi Government & DSSSB):

Systemic flaws in the examination process made it impossible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones.
Malpractices like question paper leaks and mass impersonation had compromised the sanctity of the entire process.
Even though 281 candidates were not directly implicated, the entire process was unreliable due to widespread irregularities.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Integrity of the Recruitment Process

The Court emphasized that recruitment to public positions must be conducted with absolute fairness. The Court held:

“The credibility of the recruitment process was deeply compromised due to multiple irregularities.”
“The irregularities were not limited to a few individuals; rather, they pervaded the entire process.”

2. Separating the Tainted from the Untainted

The Court examined whether the Delhi Government could have segregated the candidates involved in malpractices from those who were innocent. It found:

While some candidates may not have indulged in malpractices, the process itself was so deeply flawed that identifying and isolating them was not feasible.
The delay in conducting the examination and lack of proper candidate verification had already skewed the results.
“When an examination is fundamentally vitiated, it is not enough to remove only those candidates against whom direct evidence exists.”

3. Judicial Precedents on Exam Cancellations

The Court referred to several landmark cases where recruitment processes were canceled due to systemic fraud:

Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha: A mass cheating case where the Court upheld the cancellation of the entire examination.
Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board vs. K. Shyam Kumar: The Court ruled that when an examination process is vitiated, authorities are justified in canceling it.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. A. Kalaimani: The Court emphasized that a recruitment board’s bona fide decision to ensure fairness must be respected.

4. Public Confidence in Recruitment

The Court stressed that public confidence in recruitment processes must be upheld. It observed:

“Public recruitment exams must be conducted in a transparent and corruption-free manner.”
“Where large-scale malpractices are proven, the sanctity of the examination process is more important than individual hardship.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, upholding the Delhi Government’s decision to cancel the recruitment process. The key findings were:

The recruitment process was fundamentally flawed and could not be salvaged.
Even if some candidates were not involved in malpractices, the integrity of the selection process was irreparably damaged.
The Delhi Government was justified in canceling the entire recruitment drive and initiating a fresh examination.
The affected candidates were allowed age relaxation to reappear in future recruitment examinations.

This ruling reinforces the principle that government recruitment must be conducted with the highest standards of fairness, and when serious irregularities occur, authorities have the right to cancel the process entirely.

Petitioner Name: Sachin Kumar & Others.
Respondent Name: Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice M R Shah.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 03-03-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sachin-kumar-&-other-vs-delhi-subordinate-se-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-03-03-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category