For Petitioners : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate
For Respondents No. to 3 : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhya, Additional
Advocate General
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents No.5 to 8 : None though served.
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
CAV Order
1. Petitioners, who are applicants in the recruitment process
was irregularity in the selection process. They also pleaded that
transparent manner. Hence, prayed for following reliefs:-
10.4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in favour of the petitioner as per the facts
& circumstance of the present case, in the ends of
justice."
2. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that in the year
2023 respondent State had issued an advertisement for initiating
recruitment proceedings for appointment on the post of
Constable of different trades. Petitioners submitted application
forms for their appointment as Constable and also participated in
the selection process. First stage of selection process was PET.
As the petitioners are residents of Bilaspur range, their PET was
organized at Sakri, District Bilaspur. According to petitioners, in
conduct of PET at Sakri Centre, mass irregularities have been
committed by respondent No.3 and certain officials of the
Selection Committee, by increasing distance in long jump and
short-put; increasing height in high jump and by reducing the
time to complete the race, which adversely affected result of
PET. Petitioners and others have submitted representation
pointing irregularities so submitted in conducting PET, but no
heed was paid to the same. In District Rajnandgaon also similar
allegations were made and further allegation of giving undue
advantage to some of the candidates / aspirants were also
levelled. Taking note of several representations made
questioning selection process as adopted during PET, a letter
was forwarded by respondent No.3 to the Superintendent of
Police of all the districts within the State of Chhattisgarh seeking
clarification/report on the allegations made in the
representations. In the letter dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-8)
written by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur-cum- Chairman,
Constable Selection Committee Centre-1, Bilaspur, there is
mention about commission of grave irregularities by respondent
No.4. Thereafter also letters were issued elaborating
irregularities which were found by the Superintendent of Police,
Bilaspur and in letter dated 21.1.2025, roll numbers of 54
candidates, who were found involved in irregularities, have been
mentioned which shows that in what manner corruption has been
done by respondent no.4. He submits that in the facts of case
where the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur -cum- Chairman,
Constable Selection Committee Centre-1, Bilaspur found that
grave irregularities have been committed, it was for respondent
No.3 to cancel the entire recruitment proceeding initiated by
respondent No.1 to 3 pursuant to advertisement of the year
2023. In support of his contention, he referred Rules 7 (6) (viii) of
the Chhattisgarh Police Executive Force, Constables
(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 to submit
that it provides for cancellation of process. He also placed
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya
(Chatterjee) and others, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC
719.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General for respondent State
opposing submissions of learned counsel for petitioners, would
submit that the advertisement for recruitment of Constables of
different trades was published in the month of October 2023.
Applications were invited from 1.1.2024 mentioning last date for
submission of application form as 6.3.2024. PET was conducted
from 16.11.2024 to 19.1.2025 in the center identified for Bilaspur
range. Petitioners were declared successful in PET and till then
they did not question the manner in which PET was conducted
by respondent No.4. Petitioners thereafter appeared in written
examination held on 19.4.2025 and they could not pass written
examination. After long lapse of being declared unsuccessful in
written examination, petitioners have filed this writ petition on
20.1.2026. It is further contention of learned Additional Advocate
General that earlier a public interest litigation bearing WP(PIL)
No.82/2025 was filed and after its dismissal, one more writ
petition bearing WPS No.11126/2025 was filed in the month of
September 2025, which was also dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. Similar grounds, as have been raised
in this writ petition also, which were raised in WPS
No.11126/2025, therefore, when once the Division Bench has
considered and decided the identical issue, this writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General next contended that from
the pleadings made in writ petition, main challenge, which
appears to have been made, is to the selection process of PET.
Petitioners have not filed writ petition immediately after noticing
alleged irregularities in the PET or before appearing in written
examination. This writ petition is filed only when petitioners were
declared unsuccessful and therefore, when petitioners have
taken calculated risk to participate in further process of
recruitment for appointment on the post of Constable, they
cannot be permitted to question first stage of selection
proceeding i.e. PET, after participating and became unsuccessful
finally. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon
decisions in cases of Vijendra Kumar Verma vs Public Service
Commission Uttarakhand and others, (2011) 1 SCC 150;
Chandigarh Administration & others vs Jasmine Kaur and
others, (2014) 10 SCC 521; Pradeep Kumar Rai vs Dinesh
Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493.
5. It is also contention of learned Additional Advocate General that
after receipt of complaint by way of representations, CCTV
footages were called for and corrective measures were taken.
The officials of police department during period of PET have
given surprise visit to PET centre at Bilaspur and upon finding
entries showing that candidates were given 2-3 attempts,
explanation was called from respondent No.4, considering reply
that in earlier recruitment proceedings more than one attempt
given to the candidates, was due to some technical glitch in the
computer software more than one entries are made, this was
cross-checked with the help of CCTV footages and after
verification of CCTV footages, it appeared that not a single
candidate was given more than one attempt. Hence, after
verification of CCTV footage, entries were rectified/corrected. He
also contended that even if some irregularities were found to
have been committed by respondent No.4, then also the Courts
have to adopt the principle of "separation of grain from chaff", by
segregating the tainted candidates from those who are without
stigma instead of cancelling the entire recruitment proceedings.
In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Union of India
and others vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu and another,
reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285; Joginder Pal vs. State of
Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 644; Sachin Kumar vs Delhi
Subordinate Service Selection Board, reported in (2021) 4
SCC 631; Tajvir Singh Sodhi vs. State of Jammu and
Kashmir, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that one
of the grounds raised by petitioners is that one candidate has
applied for his selection by submitting application forms from
more than one District (by submitting multiple application forms)
as shown in the select list. Submission of multiple application
forms by one candidate is not in contravention of any condition /
clause of advertisement/governing rules. In the advertisement,
there was no bar in submitting applications from more than one
district by one candidate and therefore, when the select list was
published name of the candidates have been mentioned in the
select list of districts from where he had submitted application
form based on their merits/rank and category. After issuance of
appointment order and joining at a particular place, the post on
which candidate has been shown to be selected in other district
will be declared vacant and it will be filled -up from the wait list
candidates and therefore, there is no error in the procedure of
selection adopted by respondents nor it is contrary to any of the
conditions of advertisement. He further contended that
pleadings of bribery made in writ petition is baseless, without any
material and proof, therefore, it is unsustainable. Petitioners
cannot make allegation of grievous nature like bribery in the
selection process without there being any specific pleading of
name of candidate who offerred or official who accepted bribe.
Therefore, relief regarding direction to CBI to investigate into
allegations, as claimed by petitioners, is also not sustainable. In
support of his contention, he relied upon decision in case of
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, UP
vs Sahngoo Ram Arya, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 521;
Legislative Council UP Lucknow vs Sushil Kumar and
others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2254.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that total
5984 posts were advertised, out of which 3162 appointments
were made as of now following due process of law. This writ
petition is filed after publication of list of successful candidates
and therefore, the petitioners were required to implead the
candidates who became successful and finding place in the
select list, If it was not possible to implead all selected
candidates of select list, then the petitioners ought to have
impleaded the candidates participated and selected from each of
the police ranges / PET centers in order to say that selected
candidates are made party respondents in representative
capacity.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, would
submit that allegations of committing irregularities and corruption
by respondent No.4 at the time of PET is not correct. He submits
that submissions in this regard of respondent No.4 is identical to
submissions made by learned State Counsel and therefore, he is
adopted the arguments advanced by learned State Counsel.
9. In reply to submissions made by learned counsel for respective
respondents, learned counsel for petitioners submits that
objection raised by learned counsel for respective respondents
with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground that
petitioners after participating in selection process cannot
challenge the same on alleging irregularities and mal practices
by respondents, will not apply to the facts of the case, because
by participating in the selection process, candidate likes
petitioners accepted the prescribed procedure and not the
irregularities in it. In support of his contention, he placed reliance
on the decision in case of Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v.s Union of
India reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17. He further submitted that
petitioners have also made the selected candidate as party
respondent in the representative capacity. In the facts and
circumstances of the case where by specific pleadings and
supporting documents, mass corruption and irregularities have
been projected by petitioners, impleadment of all the selected
candidates is not necessary. In support, he relied upon
decisions in case of Anar Devi (Smt.) Vs. Nathu Ram, reported
in (1994) 4 SCC 251.
10. Learned counsel for petitioners further contended that
submission of learned Additional Advocate General for the State
that after receipt of representation, inquiry was conducted is not
correct, more so when allegations of committing irregularities in
all PET centres has been made. There is no pleading in reply
that inquiry was conducted ni respect of all the PET centres.
According to the procedure for test, one candidate is to be given
only one chance, but in case at hand, many of the candidates
have been given more than one chance and thereby undue
advantage is extended to them to get selected in PET. He also
submitted that the reply submitted by respondent State before
this Court mentions that only 32570 candidates participated to
show minor defect of 0.39%, whereas in the reply submitted by
respondent State in WPS No.799/2025, with regard to same
process of selection, figure mentioned is 97071.
11.Learned Additional Advocate General for the State submitted that
number of applicants, as it is submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners from the pleadings made in reply filed in WPS
No.799/2025, in present writ petition is very clear. '97071' is
mentioned only to show total number of candidates applied for
and '32570' is the figure of applicants who participated in PET
and as such, there is no discrepancy in the figures, as mentioned
in the reply filed in other writ petition with this writ petition.
12. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the
documents available in record of writ petition.
13. Perusal of relief clause, as prayed for in writ petition, would show
that under Clause No.10.1 of relief clause, petitioners have
prayed for qaushing of entire selection proceedings, final select
list dated 9.11.2025 for the post of Constable (GD). Second
relief sought by petitioners is with regard to issuance of a
direction to respondent authorities to initiate and conduct a fresh
selection process in a fair and transparent manner for
recruitment on the post of Constables (GD). Aforementioned two
reliefs are prayed for by petitioners making the basis letters
written by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur-cum- Chairman,
Constable Selection Committee Centre-1 Bilaspur, dated
19.12.2024, 20.12.2024 and 26.12.2024.
14. Perusal of pleadings made in writ petition as also documents
enclosed by petitioner in support i.e. reply submitted by
respondent State in WPS No.799/2025, would reveal that around
97071 candidates submitted their application forms, out of which
only 32570 candidates participated in PET. From the pleadings
in reply as also documents annexed therewith it is appearing that
after receipt of representations with allegations of irregularities in
proceeding of PET, the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur
inspected test centers by surprise visit, found some irregularities
committed in conduct of PET, which were reported to respondent
No.3 giving details of candidates like Chest No. / Batch No. etc.
In the letter dated 21.12.2025 number of such candidates is
mentioned as '54'. An inquiry was conducted by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (AZAK), Bilaspur and according to his
report, he found variation of marks in physical test of 129
candidates only. At the time of inquiry, CCTV footage along with
mark list and entries made in computer system were verified. In
the inquiry, it revealed that only 28 candidates have been found
to be wrongly declared qualified. It is also pleaded in reply that
from those 0.39% candidates, only 03 candidates have become
successful in final select list and one of the candidates finds
place in wait list. Their names have also been mentioned in reply
to be "Vilas, Bedprakash and Kamlesh Kumar Banjare". By
conducting PET through the agency under surveillance of CCTV
shows that the intention of the respondent State authorities is to
conduct the selection process with transparency, fairness and to
avoid any chance of giving undue benefit/advantage to
undesirable candidates.
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of
cancellation of entire selection process in case of Rajesh P.U.
(supra) has observed thus:-
"6...In the light of the above and in the absence of any
specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete
and relevant material that widespread infirmities of all
pervasive nature, which could be really said to have
undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a
whole and it was impossible to weed out the beneficiaries
of one or other of irregularities, or illegalities, if any, there
was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to
the other selected candidates whose selections were not
found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or other
reasons. Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary
standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the
firm and positive information that except 31 of such
selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with
reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of
relevancies and allowing to be carried away by
irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual
considerations throwing to winds the principle of
proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and
reasonably required to meet the situation. In short, the
Competent Authority completely misdirected itself in taking
such an extreme and unreasonable decision of canceling
the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary
even on the factual situation found too, and totally in
excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake,
thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.
7. For all the reasons stated above, we could not find any
infirmity whatsoever in the judgment of the High Court
which adopted a practical, pragmatic, rational and realistic
solution to the problem. The appeal, therefore, fails and
shall stand dismissed. The interim order earlier granted
thus automatically stands revoked. The appointments shall
be made within 60 days from this day, without any further
delay. No costs."
16. In case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
while considering prayer for quashing of entire selection process
has observed thus:-
"51.In light of the pertinent selection procedure that
was followed, we are unable to hold that the same
was mechanical or casual or suffered from
irregularities which were so grave or arbitrary in
nature so as to justify quashing the entire selection
process. Further, we are unable to trace the
requirement of individual rolls being signed and
verified by the members of the Selection Board, to
any statute or rule. Therefore, we cannot sustain
the finding of the High Court that the entire selection
process was vitiated by such irregularity. The High
Court was not justified in quashing and setting aside
the entire selection process, more so when sixty-
four candidates including the appellants had been
serving on the said post for over a decade.
Reliance in this regard may be placed on Trivedi
Himanshu Ghanshyambhai8, wherein it was held
that merely because the records could not be
produced since they were lost and not available, the
appointment could not be cancelled."
17. In case of Joginder Pal (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that tainted candidates to be segregated from those who are
without stigma. In the above case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered three principles to be adhered while cancelling
appointment; (I) there must be satisfaction regarding the
sufficiency of material collected so as to enable the State to
conclude that selection process was tainted; (ii) to determine
whether illegalities committed go to the route of the matter and
vitiates the entire selection process, such satisfaction should be
based on reasons and thorough investigation conducted in a fair
and transparent manner; (iii) there must be sufficient material to
support the conclusion with the majority of appointments were
part of fraudulent purpose or that the system itself was corrupted.
In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court while satisfying the order of
termination has observed that, termination order should only be
issued in cases where it is found to be impossible or highly
improbable to separate tainted cases from un-tainted ones.
Relevant paras of the said decision are extracted below for ready
reference:-
"39.It becomes crystal clear that the concern of the
Court was that for the misdeeds of some candidates,
honest and meritorious candidates should not suffer.
Therefore, endeavour should be made to segregate the
tainted candidates from those who were without any
stigma and had been selected because of their sheer
merit and not on account of any illegal considerations.
We would also like to reproduce some of the parts of
the concurring judgment authored by Justice Dalveer
Bhandari (as His Lordship then was) with the aforesaid
message, eloquently and impeccably:
"118.Undoubtedly, in the selection process,
there have been manipulations and
irregularities at the behest of R.S. Sidhu, the
then Chairman, Punjab Public Service
Commission. On careful scrutiny of the facts
and circumstances of the case, in my
considered opinion, the High Court ought to
have made a serious endeavour to segregate
the tainted from the non-tainted candidates.
Though the task was certainly difficult, but by
no stretch of imagination, it was not an
impossible task.
124. The High Court has not considered the
case in the proper perspective. The
consequences of en masse cancellation would
carry a big stigma particularly on cancellation of
the selections which took place because of
serious charges of corruption. The question
arises whether for the misdeeds of some
candidates, honest and good candidates
should also suffer on en masse cancellation
leading to termination of their services? Should
those honest candidates be compelled to suffer
without there being any fault on their part just
because the respondents find it difficult to
segregate the cases of tainted candidates from
the other candidates? The task may be difficult
for the respondents, but in my considered view,
in the interest of all concerned and particularly
in the interest of honest candidates, the State
must undertake this task. The unscrupulous
candidates should not be allowed to damage
the entire system in such a manner where
innocent people also suffer great ignominy and
stigma.
125. This Court had an occasion to examine a
similar controversy in the case of Onkar Lal
Bajaj's case (supra). In that case, there were
serious allegations of political patronage in
allotment of retail outlets of petroleum products,
(LPG distributorships and SKO-LDO
dealerships). This Court laid down that how
could a large number of candidates against
whom there was not even insinuation be
clubbed with handful of those who were said to
have been allotted dealerships/distributorships
on account of political connection and
patronage? This Court clearly stated that the
two were clearly unequals. Equal treatment to
unequals is nothing but inequality. This is the
most important principle which has been laid
down in this case by this Court. The Court
further observed that to put both the categories,
tainted and the rest, on par is wholly unjustified,
arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. In somewhat
similar circumstances, in this case, the
Government, instead of discharging its
obligation, unjustly resorted to the cancellation
of all the allotments en masse by treating
unequals as equals without even prima facie
examining their cases. Those officers whose
services were affected because of en masse
cancellation have not been given an
opportunity to represent before the concerned
authorities. In the case of Onkar Lal Bajaj there
were 413 cases and the task was indeed
difficult to segregate the cases of political
connection and patronage with other cases.
But, even then, this Court while, setting aside
the order of the Government cancelling the
allotment, appointed a Committee of two retired
Judges, one of this Court and another from the
Delhi High Court, and they were requested to
examine all 413 cases and decide the matter
after getting the report from that Committee
appointed by the Court."
40.In view of the above, the issue of entire selection
process having been vitiated would have arisen only if
the findings of the Committee were that it was not
possible to distinguish the cases of tainted from the
non-tainted ones and there was a possibility that all of
them would have got the benefit of wrong doings of Mr.
Sidhu and his accomplices. Fortunately for these
appellants, it is not so as they have been found
innocent. The appellants get ensconced, earning a safe
place, once they are removed from the category of
nefarious persons. Though the tainted candidates have
rightly received their comeuppance, but the innocent
persons cannot be punished with them. Thus, it is
difficult to accept the fallibilistic conclusion of the High
Court."
18. In case of Sachin Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that "where it is possible to segregate persons who
were indulged in mal practices and to penalize for their wrong
doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong
doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocents
and wrong doers equally by subjecting the former to the
consequences of cancellation of entire selection process would
be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India because
unequals would then to be treated equally.
19. From the aforementioned decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court it
is apparent that Hon'ble Supreme Court has adopted the
principle of segregating tainted candidates from those who are
without stigma instead of cancelling the entire selection process.
In case at hand, from the pleadings made in the writ petition and
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner,
present one does not appear to be case of commission of mass
irregularities so as to take harsh step of cancellation of entire
selection process, in the facts of the case, where according to
letters written by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur and in
the inquiry thereafter conducted by Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Bilaspur only 129 candidates, whose marks were found to
be suspicious, were found to be involved in the act of
irregularities, out of 32,517 candidates participated in selection
process, according to pleadings made in writ petition.
20. Reasonable requirement to meet out the situation wherein some
irregularities have been committed at some stage to give undue
benefit to some of the candidates among large number of
participated candidates, is to identify such candidates and to take
appropriate steps against them in stead of cancelling the entire
selection process.
21. So far as decision in case of Baishakhi (supra), which is relied
upon by learned counsel for petitioners, is concerned, the same
is on different facts wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court after
threadbare analysis of the facts of the case, reached to the
conclusion that the case therein was a case where selection
process was vitiated and tainted beyond resolution. Manipulation
and frauds of a large scale coupled with the admitted covers-up
have denuded the selection process beyond repairs and
particularly redemption. Credibility and legitimacy of selection is
denuded.
22. For the foregoing discussions, this Court does not find any good
ground to grant relief as claimed by petitioners under Relief
Clause No.10.1 and 10.2 of writ petition. Accordingly, the same
are rejected.
23. So far as relief claimed under prayer clause No.10.3 is
concerned, the pleadings available in writ petition would show
that upon receipt of complaint, respondent No.3 issued letters to
the Superintendent of Police of all the Districts to give information
along with all relevant documents if any irregularity has been
found in the PET within their territorial jurisdiction to the Inspector
General of Police. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur-cum-
Chairman, Constable Selection Committee Centre-1 Bilaspur had
sent information about irregularities came to his knowledge vide
letters dated 19.12.2024, 20.12.2024 and further detailed and
descriptive letter dated 26.12.2024.
24. From the aforementioned proceeding and measures adopted by
respondent No.3, it is appearing that respondent No.3 being an
employer was vigilant and taken immediate steps. It is also not
disputed by learned counsel for petitioners that the
Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur has directed the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (AZAK) Bilaspur -cum- Member of
Constable Selection Committee to inquire into the matter, who
upon inquire has found that out of 32570, there is variation of
marks in respect of only 129 candidates. Hence, it is not a case
of mass irregularities or corruption committed by respondent
No.4 agency deputed to conduct PET or there is any specific
allegation against any of the officials of the Police Department in
this regard. Direction for CBI inquiry is not be issued in a routine
manner on prayer made by a party making some allegations.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sahngoo Ram Arya (supra)
has observed thus:-
"5.While none can dispute the power of the High Court
under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by the CBI, the
said power can be exercised only in cases where there
is sufficient material to come to a prima facie
conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It is not
sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the
contrary, there is a need for the High Court on
consideration of such pleadings to come to the
conclusion that the material before it is sufficient to
direct such an inquiry by the CBI. This is a requirement
which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this
Court in the case of Common Cause (supra). This
Court in the said judgment at paragraph 174 of the
report has held thus:
"174. "The other direction, namely, the direction
to CBI to investigate "any other offence" is
wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained.
Obviously, direction for investigation can be
given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to
have been committed or a person's involvement
is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI
to investigate whether any person has
committed an offence or not cannot be legally
given. Such a direction would be contrary to the
concept and philosophy of "LIFE" and
"LIBERTY" guaranteed to a person under Article
21 of the Constitution. This direction is in
complete negation of various decisions of this
Court in which the concept of "LIFE" has been
explained in a manner which has infused "LIFE"
into the letters of Article 21."
6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that
the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a
person to live without being hounded by the Police or
the CBI to find out whether he has committed any
offence or is living as a law- abiding citizen. Therefore, it
is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by the CBI
against a person can only be done if the High Court
after considering the material on record comes to a
conclusion that such material does disclose a prima
facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any
other similar agency, and the same cannot be done as a
matter of routine or merely because a party makes
some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that
the High Court without coming to a definite conclusion
that there is a prima facie case established to direct an
inquiry has proceeded on the basis of 'ifs' and 'buts' and
thought it appropriate that the inquiry should be made
by the CBI. With respect, we think that this is not what is
required by the law as laid down by this Court in the
case of Common Cause1."
25. Recently, in case of Sushil Kumar (supra), it is observed that an
order directing an investigation to be carried out by the CBI
should be treated as measure of last resort, justified only when
the constitutional Court is convinced that integrity of process has
been compromises or reason to belief that it may get
compromised to a degree that shakes conscience of the Courts
or public faith in the justice delivery system. It was observed as
under:-
"14.In view of the precedents of this Court referred
herein above, it is evident that while issuing directions
to CBI to hold an investigation, pleadings and material
sufficient for CBI inquiry are required to be looked into.
It is further required to be seen that based on such
material, whether the involvement of the persons is
prima facie established. This Court while issuing
directions observed that no inflexible guideline can be
laid down to decide whether or not such power should
be exercised, but it has been reiterated that the order
of CBI investigation or enquiry should not be passed in
routine manner on mere allegations levelled by the
parties. The exercise of such power by the High Court
or by this Court must be made sparingly, cautiously and
in an exceptional situation when credibility of
investigation is in question and to repose confidence in
investigation. The Court may exercise such discretion,
where the incident may have national or international
ramifications and with intent to do complete justice or
for enforcing the fundamental rights. Mere sweeping
remarks are not enough to direct for CBI investigation,
until prima facie disclosure of commission of criminal
offence is made out. It is further said that in the matters
relating to recruitment, it would not be appropriate to
direct CBI investigation in routine course unless the
facts brought on record are so abnormal that shake the
conscience of the Court.
22. An order directing an investigation to be carried out
by CBI should be treated as a measure of last resort,
justified only when the Constitutional Court is
convinced that the integrity of the process has been
compromised or has reasons to believe that it may get
compromised to a degree that shakes the conscience
of Courts or public faith in the justice delivery system.
Such compelling circumstances may typically arise
when the materials brought in notice of the court prima
facie point towards systemic failure, the involvement of
high-ranking State officials or politically influential
persons, or when the local police's conduct itself
creates a reasonable doubt in the minds of the citizenry
regarding their ability to conduct a neutral probe. In
absence of such compelling factors the principle of
judicial restraint demands that the Court must refrain
from interfering. In other words, Constitutional Courts
must exercise some degree of judicial restraint in
unnecessarily burdening a specialized central agency
with matters that do not satisfy the threshold of an
exceptional case.
23. What is coming out from the above discussion is
that the directions of High Court that are impugned in
the present appeals were issued on basis of some
'doubt', 'assumption' and 'inexplicable details' qua
master data of external agency. However, the
impugned order fails to specifically point out these
'doubts' and 'inexplicable details' that led the High
Court to pass such directions. In this context, we are of
the opinion that the prima facie threshold that is
required for passing a direction of CBI investigation has
not been satisfied. Furthermore, all the petitioners
before the High Court (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein)
have also fairly stated before us that they have not
sought relief for any CBI enquiry before the High
Court."
26. In case at hand, from the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for petitioners, pleadings made in writ petition, as
discussed above in preceding paras, in the opinion of this Court,
even if some irregularities have been found by the
Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur cum Chairman, Constable
Selection Committee Centre-1 Bilaspur as well as Deputy
Superintendent of Police (AZAK) Bilaspur-cum- Member of
Selection Committee, who conducted inquiry on the allegations,
but present is not the case to conclude and direct for an inquiry
by CBI. There is no material to suggest or reason to believe that
integrity of the process has been compromised or there is
systematic failure or involvement of high ranking State officials or
politically influential persons, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, petitioners are also not entitled for
relief as claimed by them in Prayer Clause No.10.3. Accordingly,
prayer made by petitioners for CBI inquiry is also rejected.
27. From the above discussions, pleadings made in writ petition and
reply submitted on behalf of the State, one thing is clear that
some irregularities have been committed at the time of
conduction of PET in Bilaspur Centre, which was also noticed by
Superintendent of Police Bilaspur cum Chairman, Constable
Selection Committee Centre-1 Bilaspur during his visit/surprise
visit of the Centre-1 Bilaspur. Commission of irregularities at the
time of PET; its intimation given to the Inspector of General vide
letters dated 19.12.2024, 20.12.2024 and 26.12.2024; inquiry
conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (AZAK) Bilaspur,
who also mentioned in his report about variation of marks in PET
of about 129 candidates. However, at the conclusion in the
report, he mentions that only three candidates have been given
undue advantage/benefit by committing irregularities and they
have also been shown to be in select list; one of the candidates
has been shown to be in waiting list.
28. Maintaining faith of public at large in recruitment
proceeding/selection proceeding initiated by the State
Government or its instrumentality as also in the justice delivery
system, is paramount consideration of the Court when the
candidates or persons approach the Court making allegation of
irregularities committed during selection process. It is also not in
dispute that the police authorities/respondents after getting
knowledge have taken steps to visit the centre, noted some
irregularities, informed higher authorities like respondent No.3
with particulars of candidates and upon inquiry, Deputy
Superintendent of Police (AZAK) Bilaspur noticed variation in
marks awarded to about 129 in PET. Thereafter, even if writ
petition is filed by the candidates participated in the recruitment
process after publication of select list, in the opinion of this Court
as also in the larger public interest to maintain faith of people in
working and functioning of the State Government and its
instrumentality, in recruitment / selection process, I am of the
view that, an inquiry, with respect to candidates whose roll
numbers/batch numbers etc. are mentioned in the letters written
by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur-cum- Chairman,
Constable Selection Committee Centre-1 Bilaspur, in particular
letter dated 21.1.2025 and also of those 129 candidates who are
identified by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (AZAK)
Bilaspur in the course of inquiry conducted by him, be conducted
by some higher police official like Senior Superintendent of
Police, and upon inquiry, if selection of such candidates is found
tainted, then to take appropriate action against them of cancelling
their appointment, after granting opportunity of hearing to them.
29. Except Bilaspur Range Examination Centre, petitioners could not
able to produce before this Court any material to suggest that
any irregularity has been committed in any other examination
centre also.
30. Accordingly, respondent No.3 is directed to depute some senior
official to conduct inquiry, as directed above, with respect to the
candidates as mentioned in the letter dated 21.1.2025 and 129
candidates, whose details are forming part of report of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police (AZAK) Bilaspur afresh. If the
candidates description of whom are mentioned in the letter dated
21.1.2025 and description of 129 candidates mentioned in the
report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (AZAK) Bilaspur
are found to have been selected/appointed by adopting illegal
means, then appropriate orders shall be passed after giving them
opportunity of hearing and report in this regard be submitted in
the High Court.
31. In the result, writ petition is is disposed of with the above
observations and directions. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-
