2019 (3) TMI 2044 - HC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of competitive examination conducted for appointment to the post of Lecturers in various disciplines in the Government Polytechnic Colleges - mal-practices committed by the outsourcing agency, entrusted with the work of evaluation, by using the scanned images of the OMR Sheets - tampering - HELD THAT - The Board without doing any kind of homework or detailed study to decide as to whether it would be possible to segregate the tainted candidates from the non-tainted ones, cancelled the examination and the very selection to the detriment of those who were not in any way responsible for tampering with the scanned copies of the OMR Sheets. We are of the considered view that the learned single Judge at the Madurai Bench was correct in the finding that the Board should have segregated the tainted candidates from non-tainted candidates and proceeded with the selection process, instead of cancelling the entire examination. The learned Single Judge at the Principal Bench was not justified in taking a view contrary to the view taken by a Coordinate Bench in the very same subject matter. The order passed by the learned single Judge at the Madurai Bench confirmed - the notification issued by the Teacher's Recruitment Board pursuant to the decision taken on 8 February 2018 for cancelling the examination conducted on 16 September 2017 on the basis of the notification No. 06/17 dated 28 July 2017 is quashed. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of the competitive examination by the Teachers Recruitment Board due to malpractices.
2. Differing judgments by the Madurai Bench and the Principal Bench regarding the cancellation.
3. The possibility of segregating tainted candidates from non-tainted ones.
4. The binding nature of coordinate bench decisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of the Competitive Examination:
The Teachers Recruitment Board (the "Board") cancelled the competitive examination for the appointment of Lecturers in Government Polytechnic Colleges for 2017-2018 due to malpractices by the outsourcing agency, which tampered with 196 scanned images of OMR Sheets. Despite the original OMR sheets being intact, the Board decided to cancel the entire selection process.

2. Differing Judgments by the Madurai Bench and the Principal Bench:
The learned single Judge at the Madurai Bench allowed the writ petitions of aggrieved candidates and set aside the cancellation, finding it possible to segregate tainted candidates. However, another single Judge at the Principal Bench dismissed similar writ petitions, emphasizing the need to maintain the sanctity of the selection process.

3. Possibility of Segregating Tainted Candidates:
The core issue was whether the Board was correct in cancelling the selection due to tampering with 196 scanned images, despite the originals being intact. The Madurai Bench found that the Board could proceed by segregating the tainted candidates. The investigation revealed that only the scanned images were tampered with, and the original OMR sheets were in safe custody. The learned single Judge at the Principal Bench did not consider the possibility of segregation and dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the sanctity of the examination process.

4. Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench Decisions:
The Principal Bench's decision to dismiss the writ petitions, despite the Madurai Bench's contrary ruling, was challenged for not referring the matter to a Division Bench. The Supreme Court has held that a coordinate Bench's decision is binding on a latter Bench deciding the same or similar issues. The Principal Bench should have referred the matter to a larger Bench instead of dismissing the writ petitions outright.

Conclusion:
The judgment confirmed the Madurai Bench's decision, quashing the Board's notification cancelling the examination. The Board was directed to reject the 196 tainted candidates and proceed with the selection process for the remaining candidates. The entire selection process, including the issuance of appointment orders, was to be completed by 30 April 2019. The intra-court appeals in favor of the writ petitioners were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Board were dismissed.