Uttarakhand High Court
Devashish Singh Latwal vs Reserve Bank Of India And Others on 13 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3813-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI ASHISH NAITHANI
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 01 of 2021
Devashish Singh Latwal -Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India and Others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for Institute of Banking Personnel Selection/
respondent no. 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
Reserve Bank of India issued an
Advertisement bearing No. 1A/2019-20, inviting
applications for appointment as Officer Grade-B.
However, the selection was held by the Institute of
Banking Personnel Selection (in short, "IBPS")/
respondent no. 3. Petitioner responded to the said
Advertisement. The selection process consisted of
Phase-I and Phase-II examination, followed by
interview.
2. According to petitioner, he qualified Phase-I
examination, and he was permitted to appear in Phase-
II examination, which was held on 01.12.2019 at
different notified centers within the country. According
to him, he scored 212.75 marks out of 300 in Phase-II
examination, which was much more than the marks
scored by the last candidate declared successful, yet he
was not called for interview. According to him, after
declaration of final result post-interview, he
downloaded the mark-sheet from the official website of
2025:UHC:3813-DB
Reserve Bank of India, and the marks scored by him in
Phase-II examination were then revealed to him, and
then he also came to know that he was declared to be
ineligible for interview. It is further his case that he
sent e-mail to respondent nos. 1 & 2 and in response to
the said e-mail, petitioner was informed vide order
dated 11.11.2020 that Institute of Banking Personnel
Selection (IBPS) is the outsourced examination
conducting body, which checks the possibility of
candidates using Unfair Means in the examination, as
part of well-established post-exam processing using
analytical tools. He was further informed that during
analysis of the said examination, IBPS has reported
petitioner's name to have been found resorting to
Unfair Means. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed
this Writ Petition, seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the phase-II examination result dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure
No. 4) and the final result dated 19.10.2020 (Annexure No. 5) issued
by respondent no. 2 in respect of R.B.I. Grade-B (DR) General-2019
Examination as advertised vide advertisement dated 20.09.2019, so
far as the name of the petitioner is not included in both the said results
and for quashing the order dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure No. 8) passed
by respondent no. 1 whereby the representation of the petitioner has
been rejected.
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to declare the petitioner qualified in the
phase-II examination in respect of R.B.I. Grade-B (DR) General-2019
Examination as advertised vide advertisement dated 20.09.2019 and
to direct the respondents to conduct an interview of the petitioner in
pursuance of his performance in phase-II examination in respect of the
aforesaid examination and to thereafter declare the final result."
3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by
Reserve Bank of India and IBPS.
4. Reserve Bank of India, in its counter affidavit,
stated that petitioner was found to have used Unfair
Means by the outsourced examination conducting body
by applying internationally used and accepted formula
for detecting use of Unfair Means in the objective tests.
It was further stated that selection process is
2025:UHC:3813-DB
concluded, and the selected candidates have already
joined. The formula applied by IBPS for detecting cases
of Unfair Means is described in paragraph no. 11 of the
counter affidavit, filed by Reserve Bank of India.
Paragraph 11 of the said counter affidavit is reproduced
below:-
"11. That the IBPS categories that cases based on the above
considerations while establishing a case for use of unfair means, the
IBPS considers the following two important criteria:
A. 1. The pair of candidates has 12 or more questions with
identical wrong answers in a test (i.e. IWW 12 or more).
2.The number of questions with different responses is small i.e.
5 or less in the test (Mismatches 5 or less).
The above criteria leave out some candidates who might have resorted
to unfair means but that may have very high score on the test(s). For
example, pair scoring 39 or above in a test of 50 items will have 11 or
less questions wrongly answered, in this case IWW cannot exceed 11.
In order to examine whether high scoring candidates have resorted to
unfair means, different criteria are used. These pairs of candidates are
picked up who have 90% or more or above questions (45 out of 50)
with matching answers. This group is considered on the following two
criteria;
B. 1. IWW 5 or more (for 50 items test) (Probability; 0.00000095)
2. IWW 7 or more (for 75 items test)
(Probability;0.0000000037).
3. Mismatch 5 or less (for 50 items test)
4. Mismatch 7 or less (for 75 items test)
It can be concluded that the candidates under criteria (A) have used
unfair means beyond all reasonable doubts.
It can be inferred based on the very low probability of such an event
occurring by chance with good degree of accuracy that the candidates
under criteria (B) have resorted to use of unfair means.
A photocopy of the relevant part of Detection of Use of Unfair
Means/Malpractices in Objective Tests is annexed as Annexure No. CA-
3 to this affidavit."
5. IBPS has filed its counter affidavit and a
supplementary affidavit. In the supplementary affidavit,
it is stated that petitioner and one another candidate,
namely, Khajan Chandra Tiwari were seated next to
each other and there were twelve questions in Phase-II
examination, for which both of them had given identical
wrong answers. It is further stated that IBPS
categorizes the cases depending on number of identical
wrong answers and candidates with twelve or more
questions, with identical wrong answers, fell in
2025:UHC:3813-DB
Category-A, which indicates use of Unfair Means
beyond all reasonable doubts. Paragraph Nos. 5 to 10
of the supplementary affidavit filed by IBPS are
reproduced below:-
"5. That the answering respondent no. 3, IBPS, has reached to the
conclusion of using unfair means by the petitioner only on the basis of
analyzing his responses (answers) on the basis of formula and method
adopted and applied by IBPS in respect of all candidates uniformly who
appeared in the said examination held online. Thereupon, on analyzing
the responses (answers) of the petitioner with other individual
candidates to detect patters of similarity of right and wrong answers
and in the analytical procedure adopted by IBPS in this regard, it was
inferred/concluded that the responses of the petitioner were shared
and scores obtained cannot be said to be genuine/valid.
6. That IBPS has adopted a systematic procedure for detection of
unfair means while analyzing patters of similarity of right and wrong
answers of the candidates. A brief narration of the procedure for better
appreciation of the case of the answering respondent in this regard is
given below:
(a) IBPS has system bases capability of identifying cases of use of
unfair means bases on an internationally accepted method. The
responses of each candidate are compared with the responses of the
remaining candidates and matched for identical responses. The system
generates report of all pairs of cases which have identical responses
mainly identical wrong responses. This report is critically reviewed by a
high power committee appointed by IBPS. The committee considers
the following in addition to identical wrong answers while deciding on
reporting unfair means and a final report is prepared only after the
committee reviews the other factors supporting the analysis:-
(i) Evidence of any random/patter marking;
(ii) Identical matches of "intermittent" and "end" skipped
questions;
(iii) Items which otherwise show different answer across centre;
The above mentioned method of identifying the use of unfair
means is an internationally accepted practice.
(b) While analyzing the responses having alternate choices of A, B, C,
D and E with A as the right answer, possible identical wrong answers
of two candidates are BB, CC, DD, EE. For a pair of candidate to get
anyone of these four identical wrong answers, either BB or CC or DD or
EE is 1/16 i.e. 0.0625 or (0.25)2. This probability becomes (0.25)24
for 12 identical wrong answers. For the high match group, since the
number of the wrong answer would be much lower, the method has
been tuned to detect such cases which have 90% of higher matches
with 5 identical wrong answers. This scientific and theoretical method,
which is time tested and using by IBPS for last more than 3 decades
for detection of use of unfair means, is applied in every test.
7. That IBPS categorizes the cases bases on the above
considerations while establishing a case for use of unfair means, IBPS
considers the following two important criteria:
A. 1. The pair of candidates has 12 or more questions with
identical wrong answers in a test (i.e. IWW 12 or more).
2. The number of questions with different responses is
small i.e. 5 or less in the test (Mismatches 5 or less).
The above criteria leave out some candidates who might have resorted
to unfair means but that may have very high score on the test(s). For
2025:UHC:3813-DB
example, pair scoring 39 or above in a test of 50 items will have 11 or
less questions wrongly answered, in this case IWW cannot exceed 11.
In order to examine whether high scoring candidates have resorted to
unfair means, different criteria are used. These pairs of candidates are
picked up who have 90% or more or above questions (45 out of 50)
with matching answers. This group is considered on the following two
criteria;
B. 1. IWW 5 or more (for 50 items test) (Probability; 0.00000095)
2. IWW 7 or more (for 75 items test) (Probability;
0.0000000037)
3. Mismatch 5 or less (for 50 items test)
4. Mismatch 7 or less (for 75 items test)
It can be concluded that the candidates under criteria (A) have used
unfair means beyond all reasonable doubts.
It can be inferred bases on the very low probability of such an event
occurring by chance with good degree of accuracy that the candidates
under criteria (B) have resorted to use of unfair means.
C. In addition to adopting statistical approach, following aspects are
also analyzed which proves the use of Unfair means beyond doubt:
a) Seating arrangement is seen.
b) It is also assessed if other candidates are also detected on
the same questions/items.
c) Analysis of whole exam, items (Question) and item analysis
is also seen.
8. That it is relevant to mention that the abovementioned Formula
and method for identifying and inferring the use of unfair means is of
international standard and is perfectly scientific and has been adopted
by other such Agencies conducting various On-line Examinations either
for the purposes of recruitments or as Academic Examinations in
Universities etc.
9. That since all major competitive Objective-type examinations are
held on-line throughout India for the purpose of recruitment in Govt.
and Non-Govt. Organisations and also in the Examinations held by
Universities etc., therefore, it has been noticed by all in the Society
that various candidates have adopted various new methods with the
help of so many latest advanced electronic devices, to do cheating and
are using unfair means while taking up the Examinations and
answering the questions On-line.
10. That IBPS concluded that the Petitioner has resorted to unfair
means on the basis of below mentioned analysis:
i. There were three candidates under the unfair means
analysis report which were in pairs of two as under:
Sr. No Pair
1 Devaahish Latwal and Khajan Chandra Tiwari
2 Devashish Latwal and Anmol Kumar
Out of these only the Petitioner had qualified as per the cut-off
scores while the other were non-qualified.
ii. The pair in Sr. 1 of the above table was a very strong case
and was reported by IBPS as 'Use of unfair means is established
beyond all reasonable doubts.'
iii. Further, it was found that the petitioner and Mr. Khajan
Chandra Tiwari as in Sr. No. 1 were not just sitting in the same
LAB/ room but also seated immediately beside each other
(Khajan Chandra Tiwari) -Seat number 145 and Devashish
2025:UHC:3813-DB
Latwal Seat No. 146) as would be evident from seating patter.
A copy of seating patter is being annexed as Annexure No. SCA-
1 to this supplementary counter affidavit.
iv. Additionally, as per the unfair means analysis report, there
was no other pair which had IWW 12 or more and mismatches
6 or less.
v. As a nature process, IBPS also checked the analysis by
splitting the test in two parts i.e. Part I- the first 35 questions
carrying 2 marks each and Part II- the remaining 30 questions
carrying 1 mark each. Here to there was no other pair in Part I
with IWW 8 or more and mismatches 2 or less.
The decision of suggesting the cancelling of candidates of the
petitioner was taken purely on the abnormal similarity of his
responses with Mr. Khajan Chandra Tiwari and their seating
arrangement."
6. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel
appearing for IBPS/ respondent no. 3 submits that
petitioner and one Mr. Khajan Chandra Tiwari were
sitting next to each other, and they had given identical
wrong answers to as many as twelve questions. He
further submits that another candidate, namely, Mr.
Anmol Kumar, who was also sitting in the same room,
as the petitioner, had also given identical wrong
answers, however, he concedes that such identical
wrong answers were given only in respect of seven
questions, which only creates a doubt regarding use of
Unfair Means, and it does not fall in Category-A, which
indicates use of Unfair Means beyond all reasonable
doubts. He further submits that IBPS consists of
experts, who have evolved a scientifically proven
method of identifying cases of use of Unfair Means and
there was a stipulation made in the Advertisement that
such method would be applied for detecting cases of
use of Unfair Means. Thus, he submits that it is not a
case, where petitioner was taken by surprise, by
applying the aforesaid method and petitioner applying
pursuant to the Advertisement, despite the said
stipulation made therein, will be taken as his consent
2025:UHC:3813-DB
for use of the aforesaid method for detection of cases
of Unfair Means.
7. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not heard by IBPS, while forming an
opinion against him that he used Unfair Means in the
examination. He further submits that the method
applied for detection of cases of Unfair Means is not
fool proof and such method is not applied by any other
Selecting Body. He further submits that merely because
there are identical wrong answers to twelve questions
is not sufficient for forming an opinion that a candidate
had used Unfair Means in the examination, and it may
also be a coincidence.
8. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned
counsel for IBPS/respondent no. 3 submits that
petitioner cannot raise these objections, after
participating in the selection held pursuant to the
Advertisement No. 1A/2019-20, in which, it was clearly
mentioned that the aforesaid methodology will be used
for detection of cases of Unfair Means. He further
submits that IBPS consists of experts and opinion of
experts cannot be subjected to judicial review,
especially in academic matters.
9. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for IBPS/ respondent no. 3. Every
candidate was informed by Reserve Bank of India that
a scientific method would be applied for detecting cases
of use of Unfair Means. Petitioner responded to the
Advertisement and participated in the selection,
therefore, he cannot now turn around and question the
use of the said methodology, when he is non-suited for
2025:UHC:3813-DB
appointment on the ground that he used Unfair Means.
Petitioner has not alleged malice, or ill-will against any
individual officer, therefore, he cannot contend that he
was targeted for extraneous reasons. The methodology
for detecting use of Unfair Means was applied across
the board to all candidates, and petitioner was not the
only one to be subjected to such scrutiny, therefore, we
do not find any scope for interference.
10. Law is well settled that in academic matters,
opinion of experts has to be respected. Since a
software was used for detecting cases of use of Unfair
Means and by applying the software, an opinion was
formed by the Selecting Body that it is a case of use of
Unfair Means and petitioner's case fell in Category-A,
due to similarlity of wrong answers to twelve questions
with Mr. Khajan Chandra Tiwari, which signifies use of
Unfair Means beyond all reasonable doubt as per the
formula, therefore, any interference by us with the
selection process would be unwarranted.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (S/B) No. 1 of
2021, fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
__________________________
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 13th May, 2025
Shiksha
SHIKSHA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24
b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c,
BINJOLA
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542
D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD
9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.05.23 16:55:27 +05'30'
