Serious Irregularities Tainting Entire Recruitment Justify Cancellation Despite Possibility Of Rectification: Chhattisgarh High Court

The High Court uupheld the cancellation of departmental examinations conducted for promotion from the clerical cadre to the post of State Tax Inspector, along with the consequential selections and appointments, after an inquiry found large-scale irregularities affecting the entire process. It held that cancellation could not be faulted merely because some irregularities might have been capable of rectification.

The Court was hearing a batch of Article 226 petitions filed by employees whose appointments as State Tax Inspectors were cancelled and who were directed to return to their substantive posts as Assistant Grade-III. The petitioners challenged the cancellation of the departmental examinations conducted in 2021 and 2022.

A Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held: “The decision, having been taken upon consideration of the findings recorded in the enquiry report, cannot be set aside merely on the ground that the irregularities might have been capable of rectification, particularly when the competent authorities considered the irregularities serious enough to warrant cancellation of the entire process. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in all these writ petitions.”

Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe appeared for different sets of petitioners. Additional Advocate General Gary Mukhopadhyay appeared for the State authorities.

Background

The petitioners were initially appointed in the Commercial Tax Department as Assistant Grade-III. They participated in limited departmental competitive examinations for promotion to State Tax Inspector, were declared successful and received appointment orders. Some were subsequently confirmed in the promoted post.

After complaints alleging irregularities in the selection process, the Department constituted a five-member Enquiry Committee. Based on its reports, the authorities declared the examinations void, cancelled the selection processes and appointment orders and directed the selected employees to return to their substantive posts.

The petitioners contended that the cancellation was ordered without notice, supply of the inquiry reports or an opportunity of hearing. They submitted that some had served as State Tax Inspectors for several years, completed their probation and cleared the prescribed departmental examinations without any allegation of individual misconduct or fraud.

They also argued that the authorities could have identified and excluded the wrongdoers instead of cancelling the entire process. The State maintained that the decision followed a detailed inquiry which found serious and pervasive irregularities affecting the fairness and integrity of the examinations.

Court’s Observations

Inquiry Disclosed Pervasive Irregularities

The Court examined the inquiry reports concerning both examinations. In relation to the 2021 examination, it noted that answer booklets were transported in sealed but uncoded form and were opened for coding before evaluation. The coding did not conceal the candidates’ names and roll numbers, while the ordinary answer booklets were readily available in the market.

The inquiry also found an unauthorised re-evaluation of answer sheets by Selection Committee members without independent examiners. Original marks had allegedly been struck out and replaced with higher marks, while appointments had been made without following the prescribed reservation roster.

For the 2022 examination, the reports referred to missing invigilator names and examination-centre seals, evaluators being called without written appointment orders, absence of proper records and re-evaluation despite the examination scheme containing no such provision. The total number of answer sheets recorded as used and remaining was 1,497, although only 1,300 had been purchased. Certain candidates’ answers also allegedly corresponded word-for-word with the model answers.

The Court observed: “The task of the petitioners to succeed in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India gets more difficult and complicated when considered keeping in mind the nature of allegations and the findings of the enquiry report wherein the five members enquiry committee has found large scale illegalities and irregularities in conduct of examination, award of marks and preparation of result. The magnitude and the illegalities are all pervasive and have spuriated the sanctity of the selection process as a whole.”

The Court distinguished Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (2025), which involved appointees selected through a transparent internal process. It found State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025) applicable because the internal recruitment process itself was under challenge and the inquiry had found malpractice.

Cancellation Satisfied The Proportionality Test

The Court noted that the Government could have ignored the irregularities, cancelled the process and begun afresh, or attempted to separate innocent candidates from those who had benefited unlawfully.

More than 500 candidates had appeared in the two examinations. Given the extent of the irregularities, the Court found that segregating wrongdoers at that stage was not reasonably possible and that such an exercise could itself adversely affect innocent candidates.

The Bench held: “It is worthwhile to mention here that the Government was well within its right to cancel the process, for, serious irregularities had crept in, tainting the process and in such circumstances, the cancellation of the process cannot be faulted merely on the ground that the irregularities were curable.”

Applying proportionality, the Court concluded that cancellation was not disproportionate to the illegalities disclosed. It observed that the material carried a discernible taint suggesting impropriety and bias, if not corruption, and that the irregularities had affected the examination, award of marks and preparation of results.

Precedents On Cancellation Where Wrongdoers Cannot Be Segregated

Addressing the petitioners’ objection that they had not received individual notices or hearings, the Court referred to Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2006), Krishan Yadav v. State of Haryana (1994), Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970) and Union of India v. O. Chakradhar (2002).

Quoting O. Chakradhar, the Court noted: “If the mischief played is so widespread and all-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance.”

After considering these precedents and the enquiry reports, the Court declined to interfere, holding that the cancellation could not be set aside merely because the irregularities might have been capable of rectification.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions and upheld the cancellation of the examinations, selections and consequential appointment orders. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Recognising that cancellation could affect the service prospects of eligible candidates, the Court directed the authorities to initiate a fresh recruitment process under the applicable rules and complete it expeditiously. It further directed that the fresh process be conducted fairly, transparently and impartially with strict compliance with the governing rules and procedures.

Cause Title: Amit Humane v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another and connected matters (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:46145)

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocates Manoj Paranjpe and Amrito Das; Advocates Amit Matre, Abhijeet Singh Rajput, Himanshu Kunjam, Shreyansh Mehta, Varchasva Agrawal, N. Naha Roy, Aditya Grandhi, Rudra Pratap Dubey, Parag Kotecha, Tanusha Pathak, Vikram Sharma, Jyotiraditya Tiwari and Sandip Pandey

Respondents: Additional Advocate General Gary Mukhopadhyay; Government Advocates Vivek Verma and Suyashdhar Badgaiyan

Click here to read/download Judgment