Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos.6190-6201 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14206-14217 of 2019)

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.  .... Appellant(s)

Versus

A. KALAIMANI & ORS.   …. Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1. The Teachers Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred

to  as  the  ‘Board’)  issued  a  notification  on  28.07.2017

inviting applications for selection to the posts of Lecturers

in Government Polytechnic Colleges in the State of Tamil

Nadu  for  the  year  2017-2018.    1058  vacancies  were

notified  and  1,70,366  applications  were  received.   A

written  examination  was  conducted  on  16.09.2017  in

which 1,33,567 candidates appeared.  

2. The  written  examination  was  of  objective  type.   A

printed  book  was  given  to  the  candidates  in  the

1

examination hall.   The printed book is known as Optical

Mark  Recognition  (OMR)  sheet.   After  completion  of  the

written examination, the OMR sheets were scanned in the

office of the Board.  The original OMR answer sheets were

kept in the safe custody in the office of the Board.     

3. The scanned copies of the OMR sheets were sent to

M/s Datatech Methodex Pvt.  Ltd.,  New Delhi  (hereinafter

referred  to  as  the  ‘Agency’)  for  evaluation  and  for

preparation of the final list of the candidates who qualified

for the certificate verification.  The evaluation was done by

the Agency and the list was sent to the Board. The merit

list  of  the candidates called for certificate verification in

the ratio of 1:2 was released on 07.11.2017.  At that stage,

a complaint  was made to the Prime Minister’s  Office on

17.11.2017 as well  as the Board on 21.11.2017 alleging

large  scale  malpractices  in  the written  examination  and

requesting a probe into the complaints of tampering with

the  OMR  sheets.   To  verify  the  genuineness  of  the

complaint made to the Prime Minister’s Office, Mr.  Shaik

Dawood Nazzar representing the Agency was instructed to

send  the  scanned  images  of  the  OMR  sheets  of  the

candidates  whose  names  were  mentioned  in  the

2

complaint.   Certain  discrepancies  were  found  on

comparison of the scanned copies of the OMR sheets with

the  original  OMR  sheets.   Immediately  thereafter,  the

System Manager of the Agency was asked to re-evaluate

the scanned images of the OMR sheets of the candidates

called for certificate verification from the Hard Disk which

was  handed  over  to  the  Board.   After  re-evaluation,

discrepancies were found in the entries of 109 candidates

who  were  called  for  certificate  verification.   Further

scrutiny  of  the  answer  sheets  revealed  further

discrepancies  in  the  marks  of  225  candidates.   On  a

deeper scrutiny, the Board found that 196 candidates have

been the beneficiaries of the fraudulent alteration of the

marks.  

4. After being satisfied that the marks of 196 candidates

were  manipulated,  the  Board  withdrew the  result  which

was published on 07.11.2017.  A decision was taken by the

Board to upload the scanned images of the OMR answer

sheets of all the 1,33,567 candidates along with the final

marks and answer key on the website of the Board.  The

candidates were allowed to download copies of their OMR

3

answer  sheets  and  lodge  objections  in  the  interest  of

transparency.  

5. A show cause notice was issued to the Agency which

was  processing  the  scanned  OMRs  to  submit  their

explanation  as  to  how  the  manipulation  in  the  answer

sheets of 196 candidates took place.  Mr. Shaik Dawood

Nazzar was found responsible for  manipulating the OMR

answer sheet images and awarding higher marks to some

candidates after receiving money from one Mr. Ganesan. A

decision  was  taken  to  cancel  the  examination  that  was

conducted  for  selection  to  the  posts  of  Lecturers  in

Government Polytechnic Colleges as the Board was of the

view  that  there  were  chances  of  unearthing  more

malpractices at a later stage.  In view of the serious doubt

about  the  purity  of  the  process  of  the  examination

conducted on 16.09.2017, the Board cancelled the written

examination and withdrew the merit list dated 07.11.2017

calling candidates for certificate verification.

6. The  Board  also lodged  a  complaint  with  the

Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 21.12.2017 which was

registered as Crime No.468 of 2017 by the Central Crime

Branch for  offences under  Sections  465,  468,  471,  417,

4

201, 120B of IPC and Section 66 read with 43 (1) of the

Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.  

7. A Writ Petition was filed before the Madurai Bench of

the Madras High Court challenging the Notification dated

11.12.2017  by  which  the  written  examination  was

cancelled  and  the  merit  list  was  withdrawn.   A  learned

Single  Judge  of  the  Madurai  Bench  of  the  Madras  High

Court allowed the Writ Petition.  The learned Single Judge

was of the opinion that it  was possible to segregate the

tainted  candidates  from  the  non-tainted  ones.   As  the

material  gathered during investigation also indicated the

involvement  of  only  196  candidates,  the  learned  Single

Judge held that their results can be cancelled.  A direction

was  issued to  the Board  to  proceed with  the selections

excluding the 196 candidates from the selection process.   

8. Another  set  of  Writ  Petitions  were  filed  before  the

Principal Bench of the Madras High Court which came up

for consideration after the judgment was delivered by the

learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Madurai  Bench  of  the  High

Court.   A  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Principal  Bench

dismissed  the  Writ  Petitions.   The  Case  Diary  of  the

investigation that was being carried on was summoned by

5

the  learned  Single  Judge.   After  examining  the  material

that was gathered by the police during the investigation,

the  learned  Single  Judge  was  convinced  that  the

irregularities and corrupt activities pervaded through the

entire process of selection.   The learned Single Judge was

also  of  the  opinion  that  the  malpractices  that  were

committed during the conduct of the written examination

were  of  a  higher  magnitude  and  that  there  was  no

possibility of segregating the tainted candidates from the

non-tainted  ones.  The  contention  of  the  Board  that  the

examination was vitiated by large scale fraud and needed

to be cancelled was accepted by the learned Single Judge.

9. The  unsuccessful  candidates  in  the  Writ  Petitions

decided by the learned Single Judge of the Principal Bench

of the Madras High Court, the State of Tamil Nadu and the

Board aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge

of  the  Madurai  Bench  of  the  Madras  High  Court filed

appeals before the Division Bench.  A Division Bench of the

Madras High Court decided the writ appeals and ruled in

favour  of  Respondents.   The  Division  Bench  found  fault

with the learned Single Judge in not referring the matter to

a larger Bench in case he was in disagreement with the

6

earlier judgment on the same issue by the Madurai Bench

of  the  Madras  High  Court.    The  Division  Bench  also

examined  the  merits  of  the  matter  and  held  that  the

fabrication of the records pertained only to 196 candidates

and there was no material  to suggest any tampering by

the other  candidates  who took  the  examination.   When

segregation was possible, the Division Bench was of  the

opinion that the entire examination cannot be cancelled by

the  Board.    Relying  on  judgments  of  this  Court  in

Inderpreet  Singh  Kahlon  v.  State  of  Punjab1,

Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab2 and Union of India v.

Rajesh PU, Puthuvalnikathu3, the Division Bench held

that the decision of the Board to cancel the entire selection

process was vitiated.  Aggrieved by the said decision of the

Division Bench of the High Court, this appeal is filed.  

10. Mr.  Balaji  Srinivasan,  learned  Additional  Advocate

General  for  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu submitted  that  the

decision  taken  by  the  Board  to  cancel  the  written

examination was on the basis of abundant material  that

was  available  with  the  Board.   He  submitted  that  the

available material suggests large scale malpractices in the 1 (2006) 11 SCC 356 2 (2014) 6 SCC 644 3 (2003) 7 SCC 285

7

conduct of the written examination.  He placed before us a

note  submitted  by  the  Central  Crime  Bureau  which

discloses  the  involvement  of  several  persons  who  have

conspired  to  commit  large  scale  malpractices  in  the

process  of  selections  to  the  post  of  Lecturers  in  the

Government  Polytechnic  Colleges.   Huge  amounts  of

money changed hands.  The note that was submitted also

suggests  that  certain  persons  have  been  arrested  and

have been remanded to judicial custody.  Several persons

have also been detained under the Goondas Act and they

are in the Central Prison, Puzhal.  There are others who are

absconding  and  serious  efforts  are  being  made  to

apprehend  them.   The  investigation  is  under  progress

according to the note that is furnished to us.  The learned

Additional Advocate General urged that the decision taken

by the Board does not call for any interference as it was

taken in the interest of high standards and integrity of the

examination.  

11. Mr.  M.  Ajmal  Khan  and  Ms.  Nalini  Chidambaram,

learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  Respondent-

Candidates referred to the interim orders passed by the

Division Bench by which the investigation authorities were

8

summoned  and  records  pertaining  to  the  investigation

were called for.   They relied upon the interim orders to

support the judgment of the Division Bench that there is no

material  to  suggest  the  involvement  of  any  other

candidate apart from the 196 candidates who have been

found  indulging  in  malpractices.    They  justified  the

observations  of  the  Division  Bench  in  the  impugned

judgment  by  submitting  that  segregation  of  196

candidates from the others is possible for which reason the

cancellation of the entire selection process is contrary to

the law laid down by this Court.   Irreparable injury and

untold  misery  will  be  caused  to  such  meritorious

candidates who were successful in the written examination

if they are asked to take the written examination afresh.   

12. In  Inderpreet  Singh  Kahlon (supra),  allegations

were made against Mr. Ravinderpal Singh Sidhu, Chairman

of  the  Public  Service  Commission  for  having  accepted

money and manipulating the results of some candidates in

the  selections  to  various  posts  by  the  Public  Service

Commission.   Results were announced and the selected

candidates  were  appointed.   Pursuant  to  an  inquiry

conducted  into  the  allegations  against  Mr.  Ravinderpal

9

Singh Sidhu, appointments of persons who were selected

with his help were terminated.   This Court on the facts of

the  said  case  held  that  merely  because  allegations  are

made  against  the  Chairman  of  the  Public  Service

Commission  the  decision  to  cancel  the  entire  selection

process  without  examining  as  to  whether  the  entire

selection process was vitiated is wrong.  This Court further

held that there is a vast difference in the cancellation of

examination prior to the selection and the termination of

services of appointed persons.  We are of the considered

opinion that the facts of this case are entirely different and

the judgment in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon (supra) is not

applicable.  It  is  not  necessary  to  refer  to  the  other

judgments  which  have  followed  Inderpreet  Singh

Kahlon (supra).   

13. In the instant case, the Board initially conducted an

inquiry on its own regarding the allegations pertaining to

manipulation of the OMR answer sheets.  The Board found

that a few people benefited due to the tampering of the

OMR  answer  sheets.    On  a  deeper  scrutiny  sufficient

material  was  found  against  196  persons  who  were

beneficiaries of the fraud in the alteration of marks.  The

10

Board  was  convinced  that  there  were  chances  of  more

people  being  involved  in  the  manipulation  of  marks  for

which  reason a  decision  was  taken to  cancel  the  entire

examination.  A  bona fide decision taken by the Board to

instill confidence in the public regarding the integrity of the

selection process could not have been interfered with by

the High Court.  Sufficiency of the material on the basis of

which a decision is taken by an authority is not within the

purview of the High Court in exercising its power of judicial

review.   More  material  is  being  unearthed  in  the

investigation and several people have been arrested.  The

investigation is in progress.   

14. In  Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Ors. Vs. State

of Gujarat and Ors4., this Court held:

“21.     Purity  of  the  examination  process  – whether  such  examination  process  pertains  to assessment of the academic accomplishment or suitability of  candidates for employment under the State – is an unquestionable requirement of the  rationality  of  any  examination  process. Rationality is an indispensable aspect of public administration  under  our  Constitution.   The authority  of  the  State  to  take  appropriate

4  (2017) 3 SCC 621

11

measures  to  maintain  the  purity  of  any examination process is unquestionable.  It is too well  settled  a  principle  of  law  in  light  of  the various earlier decisions of this Court that where there are allegations of the occurrence of large- scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of  any  examination  process,  the  State  or  its instrumentalities  are  entitled  to  cancel  the examination.   This  Court  has  on  numerous occasions approved the action of the State or its instrumentalities  to  cancel  examinations whenever  such  action  is  believed  to  be necessary  on  the  basis  of  some  reasonable material  to  indicate  that  the  examination process is vitiated.  They are also not obliged to seek proof of each and every fact which vitiated the examination process.”

        It was further held in the said judgment as follows:

“30.    Identifying all  the candidates who are guilty  of  malpractice  either  by  criminal prosecution  or  even  by  an  administrative enquiry is certainly a time-consuming process. If it were to be the requirement of law that such identification of the wrongdoers is a must and only  the  identified  wrongdoers  be  eliminated from  the  selection  process,  and  until  such identification is completed the process cannot be carried on, it would not only result in a great inconvenience  to  the  administration,  but  also

12

result  in  a  loss  of  time even to  the innocent candidates.  On the other hand, by virtue of the impugned action, the innocent candidates (for the  matter  all  the  candidates  including  the wrongdoers)  still  get  an  opportunity  of participating in the fresh examination process to be conducted by the State.”

15. May be, the candidates who had a chance of being

selected and appointed as  Lecturers  in  the Government

Polytechnic  Colleges  on  the  basis  of  the  results  of  the

written  examination  would  be  inconvenienced  due  to

another examination being conducted but a serious doubt

entertained  by  the  Board  about  the  magnitude  of  the

manipulation  in  the  examination  has  to  be  given  due

weightage.   

16. Having considered the merits of the case we do not

approve the approach of the learned Single Judge of the

Principal  Bench  of  the  Madras  High  Court  in  taking  a

different view with another Single Judge of the same Court.

It is trite law that the matter has to be referred to a larger

Bench in case of disagreement by a Coordinate Bench of

equal strength.  

13

17. In  view  of  the  aforementioned,  we  set  aside  the

judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.

The appeals are allowed.    

                     …................................J.                                     [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

                            …….............................J.                                          [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, August 08,  2019.  

14