University of Delhi and Anr. vs. Deepak and Ors.
Background
The University of Delhi had engaged the National Testing Agency (NTA) to conduct a recruitment exam for Laboratory Attendant and Library Attendant posts. After selected candidates joined, the University suspected large-scale cheating, noticing that many toppers came from a few unusual examination centres, some with implausibly high scores despite weak school records, and matching patterns in both correct and wrong answers. The University put the appointments on hold pending investigation; the affected candidates went to the High Court and a Single Judge ordered the University to proceed with their appointments.
Decision Breakdown
The Division Bench disagreed with the Single Judge and reinstated the University's decision to withhold appointments. It held that the concentration of successful candidates from a handful of centres, unusual scoring patterns, and matching incorrect answers together provided a credible, non-speculative basis to suspect malpractice, even without a candidate being physically caught cheating. The Court found the University's committee-based statistical analysis was a permissible exercise of judicial deference to expert academic bodies, and that mere absence of direct "eyewitness" proof of cheating did not disqualify such an inference.
Lesson Learnt
An employer or examining body can lawfully withhold appointments arising from a suspect examination based on statistical/pattern evidence of malpractice (e.g., clustering of toppers, suspiciously matching wrong answers), even without catching any individual candidate red-handed.