Tanu Chaudhary And 41 Others vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 9953 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Tanu Chaudhary And 41 Others vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others on 29 August, 2025

Author: Neeraj Tiwari

Bench: Neeraj Tiwari

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:151788
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
 WRIT - A No. - 11427 of 2022   A.F.R.    
 
   Tanu Chaudhary And 41 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 9 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Dharmendra Shukla, Kabeer Tiwari, Sr. Advocate, Vinod Kumar Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Aishwarya Pratap Singh, CSC   
 
     
 
  
 
WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 11646 of 2022   
 
   Hari Mohan And 28 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 9 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Hemant Kumar, Piyush Shukla, Prabhakar Awasthi, Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Sr. Advocate, Vinod Kumar Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Aishwarya Pratap Singh, C.S.C. 
 
     
 
 WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 10256 of 2022   
 
   Sandeep And 2 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Manoj Kumar Mishra, Shashank Mishra, Shubham Singh, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C. 
 
  
 
      
 
  
 
WITH 
 
  
 
WRIT - A No. - 4497 of 2023   
 
   Arun Bana And 2 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Harsh Singh, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Shashank Mishra, Shubham Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 WITH 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
WRIT - A No. - 4330 of 2023   
 
   Namita And 2 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 9 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Madhaw Pandey, Rishabh Kesarwani, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.     
 
  
 
    
 
  
 
WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 5963 of 2024   
 
   Akshay Malik    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Up And 5 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Alok Shukla, Prabhakar Awasthi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C. 
 
      
 
    
 
  
 
WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 46 of 2025   
 
   Rahul    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 4 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Babu Lal Ram, Kamlesh Kumar Rajbhar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C. 
 
     
 
    
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 11907 of 2022   
 
   Shivam Baliyan And 14 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Shivendu Ojha, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.     
 
    
 
  
 
 WITH 
 
  
 
WRIT - A No. - 14151 of 2022   
 
   Manmohan Yadav    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Achche Lal Singh Yadav, Awadhesh Kumar Malviya   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.       
 
  
 
     
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
    
 
  
 
WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 16239 of 2022   
 
   Bhupendra Kumar Singh And 7 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Piyush Shukla, Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
    
 
  
 
WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 18281 of 2022   
 
   Aditya Raj Sharma And 2 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   The State Of U P And 7 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Devesh Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C. 
 
  
 
  
 
      
 
 WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 18865 of 2022   
 
   Mohd. Haroon And Another    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U P And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Piyush Shukla, Sanjay Kumar Shukla   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C. 
 
      
 
 WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 22059 of 2022   
 
   Yogvir Singh And 5 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   The State Of U P And 6 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Madhaw Pandey, Rishabh Kesarwani, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.     
 
  
 
  
 
    
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
WITH  
 
  
 
WRIT - A No. - 13911 of 2022   
 
   Ram Niwas Kumar Yadav 19 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 12 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Devesh Mishra, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
       
 
  
 
WITH  
 
WRIT - A No. - 4058 of 2023   
 
   Mayank Kumar And 7 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   The State Of U.P. And 9 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Madhaw Pandey, Rishabh Kesarwani, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.     
 
     
 
 
 

 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 17766 of 2022   
 
   Amar Nath Singh And 17 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   The State Of U.P. And 9 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Sr. Advocate, Vinod Kumar Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 WITH 
 
WRIT - A No. - 22057 of 2022   
 
   Shubham Sharma And 11 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   The State Of U P And 9 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Madhaw Pandey, Rishabh Kesarwani, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 WITH 
 
  
 
 
 
WRIT - A No. - 18316 of 2022    
 
   Ravi Kumar Yadav And 25 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   The State Of U P And 12 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam, Rishabh Kesarwani, Sr. Advocate   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
Court No. - 1  Reserved on 06.03.2025  Delivered on 29.08.2025
 
    
 
 
 
      
 
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsels assisted by Sri Kabeer Tiwari, Ms. Atipriya Gautam, Sri Dharmendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 to 10.

2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:

?a) Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents, to conduct the Physical Efficiency Test(PET) of the petitioners and to declare the petitioners as selected candidates and appoint them on the post of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police(Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment-2020-21.

b) Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents, to stay the further selection process and the same should not be finalized upto the final decision of present writ petition.?

3. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petitions are being decided at the admission stage itself.

4. Brief facts of the case are that advertisement for recruitment of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police (Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment, 2020-21 was issued on 24.02.2021. In the aforesaid advertisement, total 9534 vacancies have been advertised (9027 vacancies for Sub-Inspector in Civil Police, 484 vacancies for Platoon Commander in PAC, 23 vacancies for Fire Station Second Officer (FSSO) in Fire Service). Thereafter, notifications dated 07.04.2021 & 22.04.2021 have also been issued by which certain amendments have been made in the advertisement dated 24.02.2021. Vide notification dated 03.11.2021, syllabus of online written examination has been published, according to which online written examination would be of total 160 objective type questions (40 questions from each subject) with maximum marks being 400 for all four subjects, namely General Hindi, General Knowledge (Basic Law and Constitution), Reasoning & Mental Ability Test, each question of 2.5 marks and no negative marking for wrong answer. The next stage would be Document Verification and Physical Standard Test (DV/PST) and the last stage would be Physical Efficiency Test (PET) having 4.8 Kms. running within 28 minutes for Male and 2.4 Kms. within 16 minutes for Female and thereafter the final merit list shall be prepared.

5. Being fully qualified, petitioners applied for the aforesaid posts in their respective categories along with requisite fee pursuant to advertisement dated 24.02.2021. Their applications have been thoroughly examined and accepted by Uttar Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow(hereinafter, referred to as, ?Board, Lucknow?). Online computer based written examination (CBT) was held from 12.11.2021 upto 02.12.2021 in three shifts, in thirteen districts at total 92 centres.

6. Answer key of written examination has been published vide notification dated 10.12.2021 on the official website and objections were also invited from the candidates from 10.12.2021 to 16.12.2021. Thereafter, vide notification dated 14.04.2022, Cut Off marks for online written examination were released for each category to appear in the next stage i.e. Document Verification and Physical Standard Test (DV/PST). Vide notification dated 29.04.2022, list of selected candidates has been issued, who had qualified in online written examination and called for Document Verification and Physical Standard Test (DV/PST). The said list is having the names of the petitioners also, as they have cleared the online written examination. Thereafter, selected candidates have also been issued call letters to appear in Document Verification and Physical Standard Test (DV/PST). They all have appeared in the next phase i.e. DV/PST in which they have been declared successful for the last stage i.e. Physical Efficiency Test(PET). Now, they were required to appear in the last phase of examination i.e. Physical Efficiency Test(PET). Vide notification dated 03.05.2022, method and list of candidates qualified to appear for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) has been issued for the candidates who have qualified to appear in that. In this list too, names of petitioners were included and accordingly, they have also appeared for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) at the scheduled examination centre.

7. Instead of conducting the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), petitioners have been alleged for using unfair means and further, FIR has been lodged against all the petitioners on the basis of Candidate Response Log Report (hereinafter, referred to as, 'CRL'). CRL means complete video recording of candidates during the examination period. Thereafter they were sent to jail. Hence, present petition.

8. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that no doubt State Government is having authority to cancel the examination in case of use of unfair means, but such cancellation must be carried out strictly in accordance with procedure established by the law. He next submitted that for cancellation of candidature, there must exist a statutory rule, which defines ?unfair means? and specifies the conduct that qualifies as such and prescribes a procedure for determining whether a candidates is engaged in use of unfair means and also provide safeguard to ensure candidates are not arbitrarily penalized. He also submitted that in the present case, respondents have failed to demonstrate the existence of any rule defining the term ?unfair means? in the context of present examination or laying down of procedure for cancellation of candidature.

9. Learned Senior Counsel next submitted that earlier, respondent nos. 2 and 3 have filed counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022 heavily relying upon Appendix-3 of Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector & Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter, referred to as, ?Rules, 2015?), which rightly covers the power to cancel the candidature in case of use of unfair means, but in a subsequent affidavit dated 27.02.2025 filed by Chairman, Board, Lucknow-respondent no. 2, he has taken entirely different view and stated that by the first amendment in the Rules, 2015 on 03.12.2015 Appendix-3 has been withdrawn and ceased to exist w.e.f. 03.12.2015. This fact was not disclosed in the earlier counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022, which is an attempt to mislead the Court regarding the authority to disqualify the candidates. Exercise of debarring the petitioners and disqualifying them has been done by unfettered and arbitrary discretion of the respondents.

10. He also pointed out that State Government has not come with clean hands before the Court as in the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022 as well as affidavit dated 27.02.2025, respondents have taken entirely different stands.

11. He further submitted that the whole exercise adopted by the respondents for disqualifying the petitioners is based upon CRL, according to which candidates/petitioners have answered questions at a significantly faster rate towards the latter portion of the examination in comparison to the earlier portion. He also submitted that procedure adopted by the State-respondents in arriving at this conclusion is not only violative of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1998 (hereinafter, referred to as, ?Act, 1998?), but also patently illegal as it contravenes the terms stipulated in the Advertisement dated 24.02.2021.

12. He next submitted that Section 2(d) of the Act, 1998 defines ?unfair means? as follows:

?Unauthorized help from any person directly or indirectly, or from any material written, recorded, copied, or printed, in any form whatsoever, or the use of any unauthorized telephonic, wireless, electronic or other instrument or gadget.?

13. He further submitted that allegation levelled against the petitioners does not fall within the statutory definition of unfair means.

14. He lastly submitted that during the course of examination, no complaint has been made against the petitioners for using unfair means or any other misconduct from the examination centre or any other authority further, no unfair material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. No procedure has been adopted to oust the petitioners from the selection process and no opportunity of hearing or rebuttal was given to petitioners before cancelling their candidature. Further, as per the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2025, petitioners have been debarred/ousted from the selection process based upon unusual and unbelievable behaviour on the basis of CRL. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they have solved the question paper in a very short time i.e. 15 minutes, which is unusual and unbelievable.

15. Learned Chief Standing Counsel while opposing the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the facts that in the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022, respondents have taken stand that examination of candidates/petitioners has been cancelled relying upon Appendix-3 of Rules, 2015, whereas, in the affidavit dated 27.02.2025, respondent no. 2 has taken entirely different stand that Appendix-3 of Rules, 2015 has been withdrawn vide order dated 03.12.2015. He also could not dispute that before disqualifying the petitioners, no opportunity of rebuttal or hearing was given to them and whole exercise of rejection of candidature has taken place based upon CRL. He also could not dispute that no complaint has been received against the petitioners nor anything has been recovered from their possession. He admitted that whole exercise of debarring the candidates is based upon the CRL and the only allegation against the petitioners is that they have solved the question papers in a very short time, which is humanly impossible.

16. During the course of argument to decide the issue, this Court has raised five queries from the State-respondents vide order dated 18.2.2025. Paragraph 4 of the said order is being quoted hereinbelow:

?4. In light of Rule, there is no doubt that State Government having authority to cancel the examination for use of unfair means, but for cancellation of the candidature there are certain requirements. First of all there must have been a Rule which provides the procedure for cancellation of candidature of candidate in case of use of unfair means. The said Rule should also contain the definition of unfair means, conduct of the candidate, which is treated to be use of unfair means. Secondly, before cancellation of candidature or ousting a candidate from selection process, rule of natural justice has to be followed and candidates must have been given opportunity of hearing as well as rebuttal. Therefore, respondent no.1-Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh is directed to file affidavit of following points:-

(i) He shall inform the date of framing of Rules in case of use of unfair means in the light of paragraph 13 of appendix-3 of Rules, 2015 and annex the copy of the Rule.

(ii) He shall also inform the procedure so adopted for cancellation of candidature or to oust from further selection process.

(iii) He shall also inform the Court about the opportunity of hearing or rebuttal so given to petitioner before cancellation of their candidature or ousting them from selection process.

(iv) As per counter affidavit, petitioners' candidates are ousted from selection process based upon unusual and unbelievable behaviour. He shall also inform as to why information about unusual and unbelievable behaviour was given to candidates which may lead to cancellation of their candidature.

(v) Second ground for cancellation of candidature is that candidates have solved many questions in a very short time. He shall inform as to whether any such information as given to petitioner to solve the papers in a particular manner or particular time limit and violation of that may be resulted in cancellation of candidature.

(vi) He shall also inform as to whether respondents have received any information or complaint with regard to use of unfair means or any misconduct by the candidates during the exam period.

17. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Chairman of Board, Lucknow-respondent no. 2 has filed affidavit dated 27.02.2025. Petitioners have also filed objection dated 02.03.2025 to affidavit dated 27.02.2025.

18. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel has argued that in Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022 on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3, respondents have taken specific stand that Point No. 13 of Appendix 3 of Rules, 2015 provides that in case of use of unfair means during the course of examination, Board, Lucknow can cancel the candidature of a candidate, whereas in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 27.02.2025 of Chairman of Board, Lucknow-respondent no. 2, he has taken a different view and stated that vide first amendment dated 3.12.2015 in Rules 2015, Appendix 3 of Rule 2015 has been ousted, therefore, no rules have been framed in light of Point No. 13 of Appendix 3 of Rule 2005. Thereafter, vide government order dated 13.7.2020, seventh amendment has been made in the Rules, 2015 and Rule 15 Kha was inserted, which provides that detailed procedure for the written examination shall be determined by the Board, Lucknow and the same shall also be displayed on its website. Not only this, he also pointed out that Chairman of Board, Lucknow is talking about the The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024(hereinafter, referred to as, ?Act, 2024?), which was promulgated on 06.08.2024, but the examination was conducted in the year 2021, therefore, any definition given in Act, 2024 would not be applicable to the case of petitioners and there is nothing to show that the Act, 2024 would be given retrospective effect.

19. Being confronted by the Court, learned Chief Standing Counsel could not dispute the submission so raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners at this stage.

20. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including writ petition, counter affidavit dated 15.9.2022, affidavit dated 27.2.2025, objection filed by the petitioners, advertisement and other relevant documents.

21. In Paragraph nos. 8(2) & 8(3) of the Advertisement dated 24.02.2021, there is provision to cancel the candidature of candidate and debar the candidate from the examination, which are being quoted hereinbelow:

?8(2). ???????? ???????? ? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ?????? ? ??? ???

8(3)-???? ??????, ???? ?????????? ????? ?? ??????, ???????/??????? ??? ?????? ????, ???????? ????, ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ?????????? (Debar) ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ??????

22. From perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that in case of violation of Paragraph nos. 8(2) and 8(3) of the Advertisement, Board, Lucknow has right to cancel the candidature of candidate as well as debar the candidate from the examination. Here it is undisputed that against the petitioners, none of the allegations found mentioned in the Paragraph nos. 8(2) and 8(3) of the advertisement, therefore, candidature of the petitioners cannot be cancelled in terms of Paragraph 8(2) and 8(3) of the Advertisement.

23. I have perused the Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 15.9.2022 and in fact Paragraph 6 is the crux of the case of the respondents, which is being quoted hereinbelow:-

?6. That the contents of paragraph 2 of the writ petition are not admitted and in reply thereto it is most respectfully submitted that during the Online written examination of said recruitment process, it has been found by the Board that the petitioners succeeded in Online written examination by using unfair means, as such on the occasion of physical efficiency test, F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioners and other candidates and they have not been permitted to appear in next phase of examination, accordingly, they have been ousted from selection process. Copy of the status of investigation pursuant to F.I.R., is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-1 to the present counter affidavit. It is further relevant to mention here that in this respect in point No. 13 of Appendix-3, it is specifically mentioned that during the examination if any candidate is found using unfair means then Board could have cancelled his candidature and decision of the Board in this respect will be final.

It is further submitted that from the comparative analysis of C.R.L (Candidates Exam day response Log) of the petitioners and from the C.R.L. Report, it is evident that the petitioners have used unfair means in the written examination. Copy of the C.R.L. report of petitioners who are 42 in numbers, are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-2, and in order to avoid bulkiness of C.R.L. chart in respect of all petitioners, only copy of the C.R.L. Chart relating to only petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-2A to the present counter affidavit. However, copy of C.R.L. chart relating to rest of the petitioners shall be produced at the time of hearing of the writ petition, if so required by this Hon'ble Court.

It is submitted that from the C.R.L. review of the petitioner No. 1, it is transpired as follows :-

(a) In the written examination, 120 minutes was allocated for answering 160 questions of Online written examination. The petitioner No. 1 Tanu Chaudhary initially has given answer of very less questions and by leaving most of the question she has gone ahead and at that time, she has not given the answer of questions.

(b)The Tanu Chaudhary at initial time of examination has given answer of 20 questions in 75 minutes and after getting outside unfair aid/means, she has solved 123 questions only in 30 minutes and in last 15 minutes, she has not given any answer of the question. From the analysis of correct answer of 123 questions in 30 minutes, it has been found that she has given answer of 4 questions in 1 minute at the rate of 15 second per question in which 40 questions of numerical and mental ability were also included.

(c) The petitioner No. 1 has given correct answer of 35 questions out of 40 questions relating to numerical and mental ability and she has taken 2 minutes and 55 second in reading and viewing these questions but at that time, she has not given any answer. It is submitted that view time of the candidate is not displayed in the C.R.L. who has given answer of the question after understanding and reading it and in the C.R.L. the view time is included in the response time meaning thereby that 2 minutes and 55 seconds is only view time of answer of 35 questions of numerical and mental ability in which only questions has been seen and read but the same was not answered by that time but surprisingly in reading/understanding and solving 35 questions only 5 minutes and 25 second has been consumed and accordingly, 9 second has been taken in solving 1 question whereas from mathematical analysis, at least 15 second is consumed in reading and understanding a question whereas the petitioner No. 1 has given answer of these questions in very short time.

(d) It is settled view that answer of question of mathematic subject comes after its salvation and in such a short time, 35 questions cannot be solved, from which it is evident that she has used unfair means through Electronic devices/technical means and outside illegal assistances in solving 35 questions whereas the nature and behavior of the petitioner in solving the question was found to be abnormal.

(e) It is relevant to mention here that generally selected candidates has given answer of 40 questions of numerical and mental ability in duration of 30 to 60 minutes while the petitioner No,. 1 has taken only 5 minutes and 43 seconds in solving aforesaid 40 questions. Which is not possible for any sharp brain.

(f) It is also relevant to mention here that, For example one selected candidate Registration No. SICUP0257894 has taken 36 minutes and 40 seconds in solving 40 questions of numerical and mental ability and similarly, another candidate, registration No. SICUP0483466 has taken 44 minutes and 11 second in solving 40 questions of numerical and mental ability and another candidate, registration No. SICUP0649471 has taken 44 minutes and 52 second in solving 40 questions of numerical and mental ability. Another selected candidate, Registration No. SCIUP0658407 has taken 40 minutes and 30 seconds in solving 40 questions of numerical and mental ability. Copy of C.R.L. Report of four selected candidates is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-3 to the present counter affidavit.

(g) That the petitioner No. 1 in respect of questions of numerical and mental ability has taken 05 seconds or less than this in giving answer of 26 questions, 10 seconds or less than this in giving answer of 9 questions, 15 second or less than this in in giving answer of 4 questions and thus has taken 15 second or excess than this in giving answer of 01 question in which time taken in reading, understanding and solving the question is also included which is impossible to give answer of mathematical questions in such a short time which is evident from C.R.L. of the petitioner No. 1 which is given as follows :-

Time Breakup( in seconds)

Count of Numerical & Mental Ability Questions

01 to 05

06 to 10

11 to 15

Excess than 15

Total

Copy of the chart relating to time taken by 42 petitioners in giving answer of 40 questions prepared on the basis of C.R.L. of the petitioners, is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-4 to the present counter affidavit.

(h)Apart from petitioner No. 1, the nature and behavior of rest of 41 petitioners in giving answer of questions is unnatural and abnormal, which is clear from the C.R.L. analysis of the petitioners.

(i) That in view of the facts and circumstances above, the Board by exercising its powers vested to it under rule, has very rightly not permitted to participate in the next phase of examination of recruitment process in question which was very mandatory requirement to maintain transparency and fairness of examination.?

24. To decide the controversy, this Court has analysed the response of five queries raised vide its order dated 18.02.2025 in light of affidavit dated 27.02.2025 filed by Chairman of Board, Lucknow-respondent no. 2.

25. Now coming to the first query raised by this Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which is relevant to decide the controversy, therefore, same is being quoted hereinbelow:-

(i) He shall inform the date of framing of Rules in case of use of unfair means in the light of paragraph 13 of appendix-3 of Rules, 2015 and annex the copy of the Rule.?

26. In reply of the query raised by the Court, respondent authorities have given specific reply in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

?6. That regarding the Query No. i, it is most respectfully submitted that prior to the recruitment in question the first amendment has been made in U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 on 03.12.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of the first amendment in U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 dated 03.12.2015 is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this affidavit.

By this amendment Appendix-3 of Rule 2015 has been ousted, therefore no rules have been framed in light of paragraph-13 of Appendix-3 of rule-2015. In these rules even after this by Government order no. 2/2020/1399/6-Po.-1-20- 53-2015 dated 13.07.2020 the Seventh amendment has been made. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of the Government order no. 2/2020/1399/6-Po.-1-20-53-2015 dated 13.07.2020 is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this affidavit.

By this amendment in rule 15(Kha) provision has been given regarding examination, the Note (1) is as given:

"(1) ????? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ????????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ??????"

By para 8 (3) of the Advertisement dated 24.02.2021 the following provision has been made:

"3- ???? ??????, ???? ?????????? ????? ?? ??????, ??????? / ??????? ??? ?????? ????, ???????? ????, ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????, ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ??? ????? ?? ?????????? (Debar) ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?????"

Besides this, detailed instructions were given to the candidates in their Admit Card for online examination. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of the instructions given in the Admit Card by the Recruitment Board is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit.

From bare perusal of this the candidate who falls under use of unfair means is transparently clear.

The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Ordinance, 2024 regarding use of unfair means in recruitment conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, came into effect from July, 2024 which was not in force at the time of the examination in question. By Section 2 (K) of this Act ?unfair means? has been defined for the first time and by Section 4(1) use or indulgence of unfair means or in connection with any public examinations or the conduct or public examinations has been prohibited and provision has been made to conduct enquiry for the violation of the prescribed act by Examination Authority and examinee have been given opportunity of being heard. This ordinance is converted into the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Preventions of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 by the U.P. Act No.8 of 2024

It is important to mention here that by means of Section 13(1) read with Section 4 (1) of the act, it has been provided that where any examinee contravenes, or attempt or abets to contravene the provision of Section (1) of Section 4, his result of concerned public examination shall be withheld. For kind perusal of this Hon?ble court, copy of the Act is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit.

The online examination was held from 12.11.2021 to 2.12.2021 prior to enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Preventions of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and earlier there was no provision to provide opportunity of hearing to the candidates prior to cancellation of their candidature on the ground of use of unfair means.

By order dated 7.11.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013 (Tej Prakash Pathak & others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others) the following considerable points have been raised.

?(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discrimination/non arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

(5) Extant Rules have statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps.

It is relevant to mention here that the petitioners have not alleged any arbitrariness or discrimination against the Recruitment Board. The Board has conducted the whole process transparently and judicially.

27. In the affidavit dated 27.02.2025, they have not disclosed about the framing of rules with regard to use of unfair means based upon which candidature has been cancelled. Further, from perusal of both the affidavits, it is apparently clear that respondents have taken different views in both the affidavits. In the counter affidavit dated 15.9.2022, it is their case that they have relied upon Point No. 13 of the Appendix 3 of Rules, 2015 for framing of Rules, whereas in affidavit dated 27.2.2025, it is their case that Point No. 13 of Appendix 3 of Rules, 2015 was deleted vide amendment dated 03.12.2015 in Rules, 2015, therefore, it is an attempt to mislead the Court. Therefore, it is clear that no rules have ever been framed. Not only this, they have admitted that at the time of Physical Efficiency Test(PET), FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other candidates and they have not been permitted to appear in next phase of the examination and accordingly, they have been ousted from the selection process.

28. They are relying upon certain provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination(Prevention of Unfair Means) Ordinance, 2024, which was converted into The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 by U.P. Act No. 8 of 2024. Further, once the examination has taken place in the year 2021 any provision of the Act, 2024 would not be applicable as it was not promulgated with retrospective effect. Relying upon an Act of 2024 for an examination held in 2021 shows non application of mind of respondents and also their mental bankruptcy.

29. Annexure CA-3 annexed along with the affidavit dated 27.02.2025 regarding instructions to candidates only says that there will be no negative marks for wrong answers and further, other conditions mentioned in the instruction are having no relevance with the present controversy as none of the instructions is saying to solve the questions in a particular time frame.

30. In light of facts stated in both the affidavits, it is established that for cancellation of examination, no rules have ever been framed and in arbitrary manner, candidature of the candidates are rejected and they are also subjected to criminal proceedings.

31. The second query raised by the Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, reads as follows:-

?(ii) He shall also inform the procedure so adopted for cancellation of candidature or to oust from further selection process.?

32. In reply of the aforesaid query raised by the Court, respondent authorities have given specific reply in Paragraph 7 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

?That regarding the Query No.ii, it is most respectfully submitted that 40 candidates/petitioners of the writ petition became out of the selection process automatically due to not participating in the physical efficiency test hence no process are initiated to cancel their candidature. Regarding two petitioners, namely, Jitesh Kumar and Rajat Chauhan the Candidate Response Log was examined by the service provider agency and found proof regarding use of unfair means. These candidates appeared in Document Verification and physical standard examination but they could not give satisfactory answer for solving very few questions unusually and unbelievably in very short time, which indicates that their act falls within criminal activity and for lawful investigation of which first information report was lodged and the Recruitment Board took the decision to cancel their candidature. Against the petitioners, after investigation, charge-sheets have been been submitted.

By order dated 08.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 335 of 2024 (Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India) before Hon'ble Apex Court regarding use of unfair means in the examination and for sorting such candidates by the analysis the following point has been discussed:

?18 The third aspect on which it is necessary to have a further disclosure by the Union Government as well by NTA is whether it would be feasible, using data analytics either within the cyber forensic unit or any other expert agencies within the government or which may be employed by the government to identify suspect or suspicious cases. If this is possible, the authority shall identify the modalities which can be followed so as to segregate the students suspected of using unfair means from the other students"

Further, vide order dated 02.08.2024 in the same writ petition the Hon'ble Apex Court again passed the following remars:

"Third, the Union of India and NTA were directed to inform the Cou't as to whether it was feasible to use data analytics to identify suspicious cases. If such an approach was found to be feasible, the parameters used for flagging such cases (such as abnormal score patterns) were required to be placed on record. (Page 11 Para 14)

...Data analysis is a useful tool in the endeavour to detect malpractice (Page-40, Para-72)

?. Consider the viability of comprehensive CCTV surveillance systems at all examination centers, including real-time monitoring and recording of all activities. The aim is to deter and detect any malpractice or unauthorized activities and to provide evidence in case of incidents; (Page-56, Para 106)"

Thus, it is clear that to sort out candidates, using unfair means, the Examination experts of the service provider agency may use Data Analysis and Abnormal Score Pattern besides other means which has been permitted by the Hon?ble Apex Court. Prior to witholding result of suspected candidates of NEET no show cause notice was issued by NTA to the candidates.?

33. From perusal of the same, it is apparent that the stand of respondents is that 40 petitioners/candidates of the present writ petition became out of the selection process automatically due to not participating in Physical Efficiency Test, hence no process has been initiated to cancel their candidature. Being not satisfied with the preliminary enquiry, FIR has been lodged and Board, Lucknow took decision to cancel their candidature. It is also stated that every action has been taken in light of CRL of the service provider agency using data analysis and abnormal score pattern.

34. It is very surprising that in Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 15.9.2022, they have admitted that FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other candidates and they have not been permitted to appear in the next phase of the examination. Now, in affidavit dated 27.02.2025, different view has been taken which clearly shows malafide on the part of respondent authorities and in a arbitrary manner without adopting any procedure, respondents have cancelled the candidature of the candidates, which is admitted in the Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022. After query of this Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, to save their skin, respondent authorities have taken different view shifting the liability to candidates that they have themselves left the examination, therefore, such conduct is highly depreciated.

35. In fact, Court is of the firm view that for cancellation of candidature, no procedure has ever been adopted and based only on CRL, action has been taken, which cannot be a conclusive proof of use of unfair means coupled with the undisputed fact that against the petitioners, no complaint has ever been made by the examination centre, invigilators or any other agency, which were involved in the examination procedure, therefore, reply of query no. 2 so given by the respondent authorities is an attempt to mislead the Court.

36. Now coming to the third query raised by this Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which reads as follows:-

?He shall also inform the Court about the opportunity of hearing or rebuttal so given to petitioner before cancellation of their candidature or ousting them from selection process.?

37. The respondent authorities have given specific reply of same in Paragraph 8 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

?8. That regarding the Query No. iii, it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioners were given opportunity of being heard prior to lodging FIRs and when they could not provide a satisfactory answer to their unusual behaviour, only then FIRs were lodged. The candidate who did not participate in any one of the stage of the selection process , they automatically got out of the selection process.?

38. From perusal of the same, it is very astonishing that petitioners were given opportunity of being heard prior to lodging of FIRs and they could not provide a satisfactory answer to their unusual behaviour, only then FIRs have been lodged. It is also stated that candidate did not participate in any one of the stage of the selection process, they automatically got out of the selection process.

39. As per settled principles of law, for lodging of FIR either in Cr.P.C. or B.N.S.S., there is no provision to provide opportunity of hearing, but so far as cancellation of candidature is concerned, law is also settled that candidature cannot be cancelled before giving opportunity of rebuttal. In the present case, it is admitted that no opportunity of rebuttal was given to the petitioners before the cancellation of their candidature or ousting them from selection process. Not only this, Chairman of Board, Lucknow again tried to mislead the Court by saying that candidates themselves automatically got out from the selection process, whereas in the Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022, there is clear admission that FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other candidates and they have not been permitted to appear in the next phase of the examination.

40. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that all action have been taken in gross violation of principles of natural justice and candidature of the candidates have been cancelled without opportunity of rebuttal or hearing in a most arbitrary manner.

41. Now coming to the fourth query raised by the Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which is read as follows:-

?(iv) As per counter affidavit, petitioners? candidates are ousted from selection process based upon unusual and unbelievable behaviour. He shall also inform as to why information about the unusual and unbelievable behaviour was given to candidates which may lead to cancellation of their candidature.

42. The reply of the same was given in Paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is being quoted hereinbelow:-

?9. That regarding the Query No.iv, it is most respectfully submitted that for ensuring fairness and transparency and also to ensure trusts in the selection process in all the candidates it was necessary that against these suspect candidates, appropriate action should have been taken with immediate effect. As there was prima facie data analytic evidence against the petitioners, hence by intimating them orally and after not getting any satisfactory answer, FIRs have been lodged in which after investigation the charge sheets have been submitted. For being absent from the selection process the candidates become out automatically from the same.?

43. From perusal of the same, this Court is of the firm view that no information has ever been given to the petitioner about any unusual or unbelievable behaviour in examination, which may have lead to cancellation of their candidature. In fact, entire exercise has taken place based upon the prima facie data analytic evidence as stated in Paragraph 9 of the affidavit 27.2.2025. Again an attempt has been made to mislead the Court taking contrary view in paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 27.02.2025 from counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022. In Paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 27.02.2025 it is reiterated that candidates automatically quit the examination, whereas, in counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022 it is stated that they have not been permitted to appear in the next phase of the examination and ousted from the selection process. The Paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 27.02.2025 is absolutely silent about any information given to the candidates with regard to unusual and unbelievable behaviour, which confirms that no such information has ever been given petitioners and in an arbitrary manner their candidature has been cancelled.

44. Now coming to the fifth query raised by this Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which is read as follows:-

?Second ground for cancellation of candidature is that candidates have solved many questions in a very short time. He shall inform as to whether any such information as given to petitioner to solve the papers in a particular manner or particular time limit and violation of that may be resulted in cancellation of candidature.?

45. The reply of the same was given in Paragraph 10 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is being quoted hereinbelow:-

?10. That regarding the Query No. V, it is most respectfully submitted that the relevant facts have already been given/discussed in the preceding paragraph of this reply. However, it is further submitted that the candidates were required to solve 160 questions in 120 minutes. As per predetermined standard these questions were of simple, medium and difficult in nature. All the candidates in solving these questions utilized the time which was under reasonable time limit. During Data Analysis in connection to every examinee/candidates qualified for DV/PST clear Data Points were collected from the Candidates Response Log which were sufficient to examine their Response Pattern. In this light, it is made clear that it was not required to intimate the candidates regarding allocation of time to solve the same questions or regarding the method of solving the question, for violation of which their candidature could be rejected and it was neither required nor possible in the selection process.

It is important to mention here that after the online written examination for the next stage of document verification and physical standard test, total 36,170/- candidates were called. For all these total 36,170 candidates the board instructed the service provider agency NSELT to examine their behaviour in Candidate Response Loge and their Candidate Response Patten in giving the reply of questions through Expert Committee. After this examination NSEIT made remarks regarding total 303 candidates as given under:-

Behaviour is quite unusual and unbelievable, there is suspicion that the candidate has sought some external help via illegal means.?

46. From perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that no such instruction has ever been given to petitioners. In fact, Paragraph 10 of the affidavit is saying that all candidates are required to solve the question under reasonable time and during data analysis in connection to every examinee/candidates qualified for DV/PST, clear data points were collected from the CRL, which are sufficient to examine their response pattern. It is also mentioned that behaviour is quite unusual and unbelievable and there is suspicion that candidates has sought some external help through illegal means.

47. It is very surprising that action is totally based upon suspicion, neither any complaint has been received nor any unfair material has been recovered to establish that they have got some external help through illegal means. Law is very well settled that only based upon surmises and conjunctures, no such action can be taken jeopardising the future of the candidates. There is no dispute on the point that candidates may solve all questions in 15 minutes and once there is no negative marking, in case most of the answers are found correct, solving of question in a short time cannot said to be the use of unfair means without supported by any material. Therefore, this reply of the respondents also cannot be accepted for rejection of candidature of petitioners.

48. Now coming to the last query i.e. sixth query raised by the Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which is read as follows:-

?He shall also inform as to whether respondents have received any information or complaint with regard to use of unfair means or any misconduct by the candidates during the exam period?

49. The reply of the same was given in Paragraph 11 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is being quoted hereinbelow:-

?11. That regarding the Query No. vi, it is most respectfully submitted that regarding 42 candidates in present writ petition the following remark has been received by the service provider agency:-

?Behaviour is quite unusual and unbelievable, there is suspicion that the candidate has sought some external help via illegal means.?

50. From perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that no information or complaint has been received against the petitioners. Once there is no complaint and no information about the use of unfair means and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the candidates, only suspicion cannot be a ground to cancel the candidature ruining their career.

51. In light of facts discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that for use of unfair means, no rules have ever been framed, no procedure regarding cancellation of candidature has ever been informed to candidates and further, they have also not been informed that they have to solve the question paper in a particular time bound manner. In fact, no compliant or any adverse information has been received against any of the petitioners and nothing has been recovered from their possession. Prior to cancellation of the candidature, no opportunity of hearing or rebuttal was given to petitioners and the decision has been taken in gross violation of natural justice based upon surmises and conjunctures.

52. In last, the conduct of respondent-authorities are most irresponsible or unbecoming of government servant rather they are behaving like a group of unlawful persons. In Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 dated 15.9.2022, stand of the State-respondents is clear that FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other candidates and they have not been permitted to appear in next phase of the examination and accordingly ousted from the selection process due to use of unfair means, whereas in the affidavit of Chairman of Board, Lucknow dated 27.2.2025 entirely different view has been taken that petitioners themselves left the examination. Such type of conduct of State-respondents is highly depreciated. It is expected that State Government shall take action in accordance with law.

53. In light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed. Any order rejecting the candidature of petitioners/candidates on the grounds referred hereinabove is hereby set aside. Writ of Mandamus is issued directing the respondent-authorities to complete the selection process by conducting Physical Efficiency Test(PET) or any other remaining part of the examination maximum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

54. It is further directed that this judgment shall be applicable to all the similarly situated candidates, who had not been permitted to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test(PET) based on similar allegation, which is subject matter of these writ petitions, whether they are petitioners in this writ petition/connected writ petitions or not.

55. It is also clarified that, in case candidature of any of the petitioners in this writ petition/connected writ petitions has been cancelled or they are not permitted to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test(PET) and other part of the examination due to some other reasons, not the subject matter of this writ petition, they shall not be given benefit of this judgment and respondents shall pass separate orders along with reasons witihin the same time in those matters.

56. Respondent-authorities are also directed to declare the result of the petitioners within a month from the date of completion of examination and issue appointment letters, if they are selected.

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

August 29, 2025

Amardeep/Junaid