Court Rules Withholding Result Solely on Suspicion Unjustified; Directs ICAR to Appoint Candidate Retrospectively While Allowing Further Inquiry If New Evidence Emerges
In a significant judgment delivered on August 31, 2026, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Vinod Kumar) dismissed a writ petition filed by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing ICAR to declare the examination result of Krishan Kumar Pasi, the topper of the 2014 Assistant Grade Examination conducted by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB).
The ICAR had withheld Mr. Pasi's result citing suspicion of possible misconduct based on reports from three successive committees that probed his conduct during the examination. Despite Mr. Pasi topping the selection list, ICAR declined to declare his result while announcing results of all other candidates.
On the respondent's petition, the Tribunal observed that the committees' reports were largely based on conjecture, suspicion, and probability without any conclusive or prima facie evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Pasi. The first committee's report, which formed the primary basis for withholding the result, relied on circumstantial evidence and probabilities suggesting possible access to question papers but did not provide any definitive proof. The subsequent two committees did not even address Mr. Pasi's conduct specifically and found no malafide or misconduct.
The Tribunal, therefore, directed ICAR to appoint Mr. Pasi retrospectively from the date of appointment of other selected candidates with all consequential benefits except back wages, while permitting ICAR to continue any further inquiry if new evidence emerged. ICAR challenged this order before the Delhi High Court.
The High Court after careful examination upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that withholding the result of a candidate solely on suspicion and probability without concrete evidence was impermissible and unjustified. The Court noted that eight years had passed since the examination and no positive material had surfaced against the respondent.
The Court also clarified that it could not undertake inquisitorial functions such as questioning the respondent on general knowledge during proceedings to assess his competence. It held that such exercises were beyond the scope of judicial review under the Administrative Tribunals Act and would not be entertained.
By dismissing ICAR's petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that administrative actions affecting candidates' rights must be grounded in solid evidence rather than mere surmise. The Court directed ICAR to comply with the Tribunal's order within eight weeks and vacated any interim orders passed during the litigation.
This judgment underscores the importance of fair treatment in recruitment examinations and safeguards against arbitrary administrative actions based on unsubstantiated suspicions.
Bottom Line:
Withholding of examination results based on suspicion and probability without conclusive evidence is unjustified. Tribunal's direction to declare the result with consequential relief, except back wages, upheld.
Statutory provision(s):
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
