Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash Recruitment Process for Senior Assistant-cum-Inspector Posts; Holds Mere Similarity in Answer Patterns Insufficient to Establish Systemic Malpractice
Case Name: Akashdeep Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 21 January 2026
Citation: CWP-38698-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a recruitment process cannot be set aside on the basis of conjectures, suspicion, or post-result dissatisfaction of unsuccessful candidates. The Court held that cancellation of an examination is justified only where the sanctity of the process is shown to be compromised at a systemic level, rendering it impossible to segregate tainted candidates from untainted ones. Mere similarity in incorrect answers or geographical concentration of successful candidates does not, by itself, establish mass copying or paper leakage.
Summary: The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the entire recruitment process conducted pursuant to Advertisement No.6 of 2023 for 184 posts of Senior Assistant-cum-Inspector. The petitioners challenged the written examination held on 28.01.2024, the result declared on 12.08.2024, and the subsequent typing test conducted on 01.12.2025 and 02.12.2025. Directions were also sought for publication of the judicial inquiry report, registration of an FIR into the alleged recruitment scam, and initiation of disciplinary and criminal action against allegedly tainted candidates and officials.
The petitioners alleged large-scale irregularities, including paper leakage, mass copying, and coordinated filling of OMR sheets. Reliance was placed on circulation of answer sheets of top-ranking candidates on social media platforms, alleged striking similarity in incorrect answers, and the fact that several high-ranking candidates belonged to the same districts. The petitioners relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE, Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB, and Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India to contend that the entire examination stood vitiated.
The State opposed the petition, placing reliance on a detailed inquiry report dated 24.06.2025 prepared by a retired Judge of the High Court. The report, produced in a sealed cover and opened in Court, categorically concluded that no instance of malpractice, paper leak, impersonation, or systemic irregularity was established. It was pointed out that out of nearly 27,764 candidates, the alleged similarity was confined to a small number, that candidates appeared at different centres, and that forensic examination ruled out common authorship or tampering of OMR sheets. The State further contended that petitioner Akashdeep Kaur herself had not participated in the inquiry proceedings and was not even within the zone of consideration.
The Court undertook an exhaustive analysis of the inquiry findings and the governing legal principles. It held that improvement in performance, regional concentration, age of candidates, or familial relationships cannot automatically give rise to an inference of malpractice. The Court emphasised that judicial interference with recruitment processes requires clear, cogent, and verifiable evidence of systemic fraud. Distinguishing Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar on facts, and relying heavily on the three-Judge Bench decision in Vanshika Yadav, the Court held that cancellation of an examination would be a disproportionate response in the absence of proof of widespread or systemic breach.
Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the recruitment process conducted pursuant to Advertisement No.6 of 2023 and vacated the interim order dated 22.12.2025.