Service Law – Recruitment – Examination – Irregularities in – An advertisement dated 26.12.2009 issued for 231 vacancies for the post of Head Clerk [(Grade 2) (DASS)] in GNCTD – 62,056 application received – 8,224 appeared in Tier-I Examination – Results were declared in 2014 – Shortlisted candidates appeared in Tier-II Examination in the year 2015 – Several complaints were received regarding leakage of question papers, mass cheating, allotment of common examination centre and rooms to members of the same family, in the conduct of both the Tier-l and Tier-ll examinations – Two Committees were constituted to enquire into the irregularities, both found serious irregularities in the examination – An FIR was registered at Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) u/s. 13(1)(d) of Corruption Act r/w. s.120B of IPC – Dy. CM recommended for the cancellation of exam and a notification was issued for cancellation of exam – Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the said cancellation notification holding that the appointments would be subject to ACB Investigation – High Court while upholding the order of the Tribunal, confined the relief to only six applicants who approached the Tribunal – On appeal, held: A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity u/Art. 16(1) is a constitutional requirement – Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate – The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection – Recruitment to public service must command public confidence – In the present case, the report of the Committee dwells on: (i) The delay of five years in holding the Tier-I examination after the advertisement was released in 2009; and (ii) The issuance of admit cards only through the electronic mode, which was not prescribed in the advertisement – Besides other irregularities, Committee also noted that there was a racket which had led to the impersonation of candidates – There was absence of randomization, many cases had emerged where two or more members of a single family sat in consecutive order and were falling under the zone of probable selection – The Committee found that the videography was blurred, thumb impressions were unrecognizable, jammers were not working properly and candidates were allowed to appear irrespective of their educational qualifications – Further, it was noted that allegations of flying squad members passing answers onto candidates – Considering all the irregularities, the Secretary Vigilance also opined that the entire process of recruitment appeared to be vitiated – There was a denial of equal access to the Tier-l examination and the allegations showed that the credibility of the process itself had been eroded – In such a situation, where a decision is taken by the Government to cancel the entire process, it cannot be held to be irrational or arbitrary, applying the yardstick of fair procedure and proportionality to the decision-making process – Both the judgments of High Court and the Tribunal are unsustainable. Constitution of India – Article 16(1) – Equality of opportunity – Public Employment – irregularities – Held: A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity u/Art. 16(1) is a constitutional requirement – Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. Constitution of India – Article 14 – Right To Equality – Recruitment – Held: The constitutional values which undergird Articles 14 and 16 mandate that selection processes conducted by public authorities to make recruitments have to be fair, transparent and accountable – A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 – Where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices and to penalise them 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 innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally.Service Law – Recruitment – Irregularities in Examination – Position in Law – discussed.