Dr. Sangeeta Arya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (and connected appeals)

[2026:RJ-JP:10630-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

(1) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1364/2025: Dr. Sangeeta Arya v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Connected with D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos. 1074/2025, 1075/2025, 1076/2025, 1080/2025, 1209/2025, 1210/2025, 1282/2025, 1311/2025, 1334/2025, 1346/2025 (The State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Kailash Chand Sharma & Ors.), 1347/2025, 1378/2025, 1405/2025, 1406/2025, 1417/2025 and 1464/2025, and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13601/2025 (Suo Motu: In Re Systemic Malpractices within the RPSC in the State of Rajasthan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

[NyayVidhan note: the official PDF's cause title runs to about 200 pages and lists several hundred appellants and respondents, mostly candidates, with their addresses, and their counsel. It is not reproduced here; see the attached PDF. Principal counsel: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General, and Senior Advocates Mr. R.N. Mathur, Mr. Kamlakar Sharma and Mr. Vikash Balia for the appellants; Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, for the respondents; Mr. Sanjay Mehla for the CBI.]

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Judgement

Reportable

Date of conclusion of arguments: 19/01/2026 | Judgement reserved on: 19/01/2026 | Full judgement pronounced on: 04/04/2026

(Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)

1. The judgement passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13806/2024: Kailash Chand Sharma and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other connected matters is challenged before us in these bunch of special appeals preferred by the State of Rajasthan namely D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1346/2025: The State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Kailash Chand Sharma and Ors. and another D.B. Special appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in bunch of writ petitions in lead case of Suraj Mal Meena and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16031/2025 whereby, directions were issued to the State Government to consider relaxation of age to the candidates who appeared in the recruitment examination of the Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander recruitment and applied in pursuance of the advertisement and reapplied under the subsequent advertisement for the same post of Sub Inspector and Platoon Commander. Other directions have also been issued by another Single Bench.

2. The learned Single Judge in his judgement dated 28.08.2025 issued the following directions: “134. In furtherance of the noted conclusion regarding the inherent and absolute need for the cancellation of the process undertaken by the RPSC for recruitment of candidates on the post of Sub-Inspector in pursuance of Advertisement No. 08/2021 dated 03.02.2021, this Court, in agreement and in the same breath as the recommendations deemed necessary by the learned Advocate General in his opinion dated 14.09.2024, deems it fit to direct as under:-(i) That the Government should prepare a detailed report with supporting material, in consonance with the shortcomings noted in the preceding discourse, and on that basis and along with that report and corroborating material, recommend to the RPSC to cancel the whole recruitment process conducted till date including the result/recommendations of the Sub-Inspector Police/Platoon Commander Recruitment Examination 2021. (ii) That the RPSC should also be instructed to re-conduct the whole process under the same advertisement dated 03.02.2021, or by making alternative arrangements in the novel advertisement so issued vide notification dated 17th July 2025, on the basis of valid applications received in pursuance of that advertisement, deadline of which is September 08 2025. It would be expected from the RPSC, that in confirmation with Clause 4 of the recommendations dated 28.06.2025, to protect the interests of the candidates involved in the present recruitment process, sufficient number of posts should be advertised in the upcoming new recruitment examination and relaxation in age eligibility should also be considered positively. (iii) That to be fair to the applicants, reasonable time for preparation and appearing in the examination should be allowed. (iv)That the RPSC should be instructed to ensure fairness and transparency in the re-conducting of the process as to avoid any further lapses. (v) That as soon as the RPSC decides and cancels the process as mentioned above, the appointments made on the basis of the previous process should be immediately cancelled by the government with all legal consequences, as noted above. (vi)That in case of termination of the candidates appointed, if any one of them have resigned their Government services to join the new post, order should be issued for their reinstatement to their original posts in Government Service, in above terms.”

3. The judgement passed in Suraj Mal Meena dated 30.10.2025 is essentially the offshoot of the earlier judgement passed in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma (supra). It would be, therefore, appropriate to first deal with the challenge to the judgement in Kailash Chand Sharma (supra).

4. In a connected case of Maneesh Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2837/2025, the learned Single Judge has divided his judgement into various parts of prefatory remarks, factual narrative, submissions of petitioners and respondents and discussions of findings, conclusions, direction and Suo Moto cognizance and PIL. The PIL was also, therefore, registered on the directions of the learned Single Judge.

5. The respondents in the writ petition filed by Kailash Chand Sharma have also preferred appeals namely Amar Singh And Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan And Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1075/2024. Considering the voluminosity of the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge and the submissions raised before us by the concerned selected candidates, the submissions of the Advocate General are dealt with, whereafter, the submissions of the other counsels would be noted. Before we examine, taking into consideration the arguments advanced, it would be apposite to first notice the brief facts.

Brief facts

6. On 03.02.2021, Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, “the RPSC”) issued an advertisement advertising the post of Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander to be filled by way of selection as per the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, and total 859 posts were advertised in Non-TSP and TSP Area. As has come on record placed by the State, 7,97,030 candidates applied for the post, but only 3,83,728 candidates participated in the examination.

7. The written examination was to be conducted on 04.09.2021 as per the press note issued by the RPSC, however, another press note was issued on 28.07.2021 by the RPSC declaring that the written examination shall be conducted on 13.09.2021 to 15.09.2021 and Paper-I was conducted for candidates from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM and Paper-II was scheduled from 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM on all 3 days. Candidates with roll numbers appeared on each stage.

8. The result of the written examination was declared on 24.12.2021 and out of total 3,83,728 candidates who had appeared, 20,359 candidates declared successful in the provisional result, whereafter physical efficiency test was conducted from 12.02.2022 to 18.02.2022 for the successful candidates at various Divisional Headquarters namely, Ajmer, Jaipur-I, Jaipur-II, Udaipur, Kota and Jodhpur.

9. The RPSC published the result on 11.04.2022 after the physical efficiency test and thereafter called the selected candidates for interview which were conducted on various dates in May. The result was declared on 01.06.2023 and 3064 candidates qualified in the final result. 780 candidates were issued appointment orders on 21.09.2023. On 04.10.2023, 19 candidates were issued appointment order. On 09.02.2024, 86 candidates were issued appointment order and on 06.03.2024, 02 candidates were issued appointment order.

10. In the previous litigation, the writ petition was filed by Kailash Chand Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7264/2022 challenging the selection process of the result dated 11.04.2022. The State Government filed its reply on 05.07.2022 and on 21.07.2022, the petitioners withdrew the writ petition without seeking any liberty to file a fresh writ petition and the writ petition was directed to be dismissed as withdrawn by the High Court.

11. After the result was declared and appointment orders had been issued as above, writ petition was filed by Kailash Chand Sharma along with some other candidates who had not filed a writ petition earlier. The same was registered on 21.08.2024.

12. The petitioner filed an affidavit on 25.09.2024 before the Court mentioning that son and daughter of Ramuram Raika had been arrested on 31.08.2024 whereafter on 01.09.2024, Ramuram Raika who was an RPSC member had also been arrested. On 02.09.2024, another RPSC member Babu Lal Katara was also arrested.

13. Further arguments reflect that the Advocate General vide his letter dated 14.09.2024 opined that the examination was required to be cancelled. On 01.10.2024, a 6 members Committee of the Council of Ministers as has come on record and on 07.10.2024, the first meeting of Ministers was conducted. The second meeting of the Committee of Ministers was conducted on 10.10.2024. In the meanwhile, two other persons were also arrested on 09.10.2024.

14. Another affidavit was filed before the Court by the writ petitioner placing on record U.O. Note dated 10.12.2024 recommending cancellation of Police Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander Examination, 2021 and also allowing all the candidates who had participated, to appear again for the examination and the said recommendations were to be placed before the Chief Minister for perusal and approval.

15. On 09.01.2025, the learned Single Judge directed the State Government to keep all the orders made in so far after orders of status quo to be at a standstill till further orders of the Court. On 10.02.2025, the State Government was allowed to take appropriate action, clarify its order and that the present petition would in no way halt the initiation of criminal proceedings or actions against the accused persons and the State would be at liberty to take appropriate actions and do the needful in accordance with law. It appears that the case was heard on various dates by the learned Single Judge and several orders were passed as noted by himself in his order.

16. On 21.02.2025, after hearing the arguments, the Court granted two months period to the State Government for arriving at a conclusion and liberty to take action against the tainted candidates. As has come on record, different orders were passed and 47 candidates who had been appointed were terminated from service, treating them as tainted candidates.

17. On 28.06.2025, based on the SIT Report, the Committee of Ministers conducted its meeting afresh, thereafter, and made four recommendations to the State Government which were accepted by the State Government, mainly that the SIT would continue the investigation further and all those candidates who have been appointed by fraudulent methods would be arrested and effective action would be taken. Second, services of the marked tainted candidates would be terminated and they would be debarred from further participation in the selections.

18. Thirdly, the decision to cancel the Police Sub-Inspector Platoon Commander Examination, 2021 would be premature at this stage. Fourthly, to protect the candidates who had participated in the present selection process, adequate number of post would be advertised in the next recruitment examination and decision to give age relaxation should be considered in a positive manner. Thereafter, in July to August, the case was again heard by the learned Single Judge and judgement was reserved on 14.08.2025 and pronounced on 28.08.2025, whereby he cancelled the examination.

Arguments of the Advocate General

19. Having noted the aforesaid events which have taken place during the course of the hearing before the learned Single Judge, the Advocate General has vehemently argued and submitted that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to have entertained the writ petition itself.

20. Learned Advocate General argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to exercise caution and approach especially when the petitioner has surreptitiously filed a second writ petition after withdrawing the first writ petition. The writ petition was not maintainable and further the same should have been dismissed at the threshold on account of concealment of material facts. He has taken this Court to the contents of the writ petition filed by Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) wherein there is no mention of earlier writ petition having been filed by him along with others which came to be dismissed without giving any opportunity to file afresh.

21. Learned counsel has relied on the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd and Ors.: (2008) 12 SCC 481, Ramjas Foundation and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.: (2010) 14 SCC 38, Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Ors. Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Ors.: (2013) 11 SCC 531 and K. Jayaram Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors.: (2022) 12 SCC 815.

22. He submits that concealment of any nature would be sufficient to dismiss the writ petition and the litigant cannot decide as to what is a material concealment and what is not material concealment, for reaching to such conclusion. He submits that the preliminary objection was raised before the learned Single Judge who has casually brushed aside the said argument without considering the fact that in matters relating to selections, the conduct of the writ petitioner is very material. He relies on Para 34 of K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd and Ors (supra) which reads as under: “34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.”

23. Learned counsel has further pointed out that once a preliminary objection is taken before the Court, it was bound duty of the Court to first decide the preliminary objection regarding maintainability and it could not have proceeded further unless the preliminary objection has been decided.

24. He has relied on DGP, CRPF Vs. P.M. Ramalingam: (2009) 1 SCC 193, Union of India Vs. Adani Exports: (2002) 1 SCC 567, Manubhaj J. Patel Vs. Bank of Baroda: (2000) 10 SCC 253 and Unique Organics Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14226/2023.

25. He further submits that as the prayers made in the writ petition filed by Kailash Chand Sharma (supra) previously were the same as made in the subsequent writ petition and the parties were also same, the principle of Res Judicata would apply squarely and the writ petition ought to have been dismissed.

26. He relies on Sarguja Transport Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and Ors.: (1987) 1 SCC 5, Hanuman Singh Vs. Board of Revenue: 2002 AIR (Raj) 365. Even the principles of constructive Res Judicate would have a strong application in the case. He relies on Radha Krishna Vs. State of Rajasthan: 1976 RLW 671 and Devilal Modi Vs. State Tax Officer, Ratlam: 1964 SCC OnLine SC 17.

27. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has while recording in the order sheets from time to time not dealt with the objections being taken by the Advocate General and continued to proceed with the hearing. It has been submitted that once objections have been raised and noticed, the same have to be first adjudicated upon.

28. Learned counsel further has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and submits that the writ petition filed by the candidates who had participated in the entire selection process and having become unsuccessful could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate.

29. The petition suffered from the conduct of the writ petitioners who had waived their right and had acquiesced to the situation in which the examination has processed. They were, therefore, estopped from challenging the final selection after having participated and having become unsuccessful. The delay and laches was material in the present cases, but all these aspects have been ignored by the learned Single Judge.

30. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that the Single Judge has taken over the role of the administrative authorities. Further, he submits that the State Government alone can take a decision whether to cancel the complete examination or to allow the candidates who were not tainted to continue with the training.

31. Learned Advocate General further states that while it is true that at the initial stage, prima facie, a view was taken to cancel the examination and even the Advocate General gave his opinion to cancel the examination, however, the view was at the first brush, but considering the report of the SOG that the tainted candidates could be identified and the candidates who had participated in the selection process and were clean would suffer, the State Government took a decision not to cancel the examination.

32. He has invited our attention to the events as noticed above. The Advocate General further raised strong objection to the method and manner in which the writ petition proceedings were taken. He submits that the documents had been filed by the petitioners without disclosure of their source.

33. None of the documents which have been relied upon were placed either by the Investigating Authority or by the State Government. Inter-departmental communications relied upon by the learned Single Judge to reach to a final judgement which could not have been considered as communication between the departments are not final in nature.

34. The opinion of the State could not have been treated to have been arrived at based on inter-departmental communication. He submits that the first meeting of the Ministers which gave its opinion for confirmation to the Chief Minister was not accepted by the Chief Minister who sent it back to the Committee of Ministers and the Committee of Ministers after considering the final SOG report, reached to the conclusion that the examination ought not to be cancelled.

35. He submits that such a decision taken by the Committee was accepted by the State Government and the said decision of the Sate Government was not subject matter of challenge before the High Court. In spite thereto, learned Single Judge has interfered and has independently cancelled the examination which could not have been done.

36. Learned counsel submits that the process of cancellation of examination is to be done in very rare cases. He submits that the criteria for cancellation of examination has been laid down exclusively in Vanshika Yadav Vs. Union of India: (2024) 10 SCC 641 and State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharya (Chatterjee) and Ors.: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719.

37. He further submits that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to have treated the selection process in a particular examination as a PIL. The PIL would not be maintainable in service matters and he relies on law laid down by the Apex Court in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 2005 SC 540 which has been followed by this Court in the case of Professor K.B. Agarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No.5789/2020.

38. Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that there was no material available before the learned Single Judge which could be said to be authentic and admissible in law to reach to the conclusion of cancelling the entire examination.

39. He invited our attention to the scheme of examination and pointed out that there were three stages in the examination conducted by the RPSC which included one part of written examination and whereafter candidate was required to appear for physical test and after clearing the physical test, interview was also required to be conducted.

40. On the basis of the overall marks attained in all the three examinations, a merit list was required to be prepared. However, in the writ petition preferred before the learned Single Judge, the grievance raised was only with respect to allegations of paper leak with regard to the written examination.

41. There is no objection raised with regard to the sanctity of the interview as well as of the physical test examination. He, therefore, submits that merely on the basis of allegations of there being a paper leakage in the written examination, it cannot be said that those who have been finally selected have cleared the examination by cheating, as all of them have undergone the physical test and secured the minimum marks as required under the Police Subordinate Service Rules and thereafter, have also cleared the interview.

42. Since, there is no allegation of there being any favouritism shown either during the physical test or during the written examination, he submits that the entire findings arrived at by the Single Judge are based on surmises and therefore, the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed.

43. He further submits that the SOG report placed before the learned Single Judge is merely a story prepared by the SOG Officers in order to influence the Court. Such stories have to be tested on the anvil of truth and truth alone. Opinion obtained on the basis of prima facie report of SOG would be a biased opinion and cannot be a basis to cancel the entire examination.

44. Learned counsel has further pointed out that all the petitioners had participated in the examination process and some of them participated in physical test level and interview level, but failed to achieve marks in merit. They were fence-sitters who did not challenge the written examination and result thereto at the initial stage. They are, therefore, estopped from challenging the selection process after they have participated and failed.

45. He also pointed out that while the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the opinion of the Advocate General and the Police Officials, the final decisions taken by the State Government not to cancel the examination and only leave out the tainted candidates was not challenged in any of the writ petitions. However, the Single Judge has proceeded to cancel the said decision of the State Government.

46. The Single Bench had dismissed the application for amendment in the grounds of relief. Thereafter, he could not have moulded the relief. Learned counsel submits that it is a time-tested principle of separating grain from chaff and everyone should not be made to suffer merely because some persons had been involved in leaking of the examination papers. It is submitted that it is the news which was circulated to the media which has influenced the judgement rendered by the learned Single Judge.

47. Learned counsel has also by way of written submissions placed, mentioned that the foundation of writ was a newspaper cutting and certain FIRs and challans and no substantial material was submitted with the writ petitions. A newspaper cutting was placed about Jalore which was ultimately found to be wrong in the report prepared by the statistical department which was submitted at the stage of final decision along with additional affidavit of the State. It is also submitted that there has been a delay in invoking the writ jurisdiction after the final selection was over and appointments have been made.

48. The present writ petition was filed when several of the petitioners could not pass the physical efficiency test and clear the interview. It is stated that while the advertisement was issued on 03.02.2021 written examination was conducted on 04.09.2021. Result was declared on 24.12.2021, the physical efficiency test was conducted between 12.02.2022 to 18.02.2022 and result of which was declared on 11.04.2022 and interview was conducted thereafter and on 01.06.2023, the final result was declared. 3064 candidates qualified, appointments were also issued on 21.09.2023, 04.10.2023, 09.02.2024 and 06.03.2024. The petitioner did not file the writ petition during this period. Although the FIRs were filed on 13.09.2021 and 14.09.2021, 15.09.2021, 17.09.2021 and 24.09.2021, it is on 13.08.2024 that the writ petition was filed.

49. Thus, there is a considerable delay which is material enough for the Court to interfere with the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the entire examination has been cancelled. He further submits that several of the writ petitioners qualified the written examination and participated in the subsequent two stages, but they did not challenge the so called alleged mal practice during the written examination. They accepted the result, but did not qualify at the subsequent two stages.

50. He has further seriously objected to the report of SOG submitted by the writ petitioners with the additional affidavit and the source from which such a report had been obtained. It is submitted by another written submissions, the notable details of one of the writ petitioners Chetan Prakash Meena, writ petitioner No.20 in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan: Civil Writ Petition No.13806/2024 is that Chetan Prakash Meena was serving as a Constable and was posted in SOG since 09.06.2023 and he was privy to all the investigation. When the SOG recommended the cancellation of the recruitment and forwarded the same to DGP on 13.08.2024, on that very day, i.e., 13.08.2024, the petitioner illegally obtained the departmental correspondence and confidential documents of the SOG and filed the writ petition in the Hon’ble Court. Although the earlier writ petition filed by Kailash Chand Sharma- writ petitioner No.1 was withdrawn, the appellants have stated that it is in all probability that the writ petitioner No.20 Chetan Prakash Meena leaked the confidential documents of the SOG and such person, therefore, are not entitled to be given benefit of writ jurisdiction.

51. It is stated that Chetan Prakash Meena was a member of the investigating team all throughout and in charge-sheets No. 7, 7A, 7D, he is also a witness, but these facts have been deliberately omitted by the writ petitioner and it is, therefore, submitted that a deliberate concealment of material facts has been made by the petitioner and on this basis, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed.

52. It is further stated that this Court ought to consider the fact that the Council of Ministers had taken a decision on 27.06.2025 not to cancel the examination. They had considered the Department of Personnel report and the statistical data regarding the selection of candidates from particular region of State, which negated the press report placed by the petitioner before the Court and relied upon. The report of Department of Home was also considered by the Committee of Council of Ministers. The Committee also noticed that filing of FIRs and challan would not be a ground for sustaining and treating the allegations as proved.

53. The appellants have submitted that there are large number of candidates who have not been found guilty of impersonation or copying despite investigation since 2024. It is also submitted that there are about 740 candidates who not only passed the S.I. recruitment examination 2021, but also other recruitment exams. It is stated that approximately 740 Sub Inspectors have been selected based on capability, hard work and honesty. Of the remaining 98, 64 have been arrested, 9 are absconding. It is also stated that there are as many as 25 candidates selected who are very young and have passed the examination in their first attempt.

54. He, therefore, submits that cancelling the entire examination would result in demoralising the genuine candidates who cleared not only the written examination, but physical test, as well as the interview. Cancellation of the examination would result in lowering down of the morale of the candidates who have not indulged in any cheating activities. It is submitted that the paper of Sub Inspector recruitment examination cannot be said to have been leaked at a mass level and it is only an apprehension raised by the Police Authorities which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge without examining the data.

55. Learned counsel submits that he has placed the table on record to submit that out of total 7,97,011 applications received for the examination only 3,83,097 applicants appeared which included 2,97,320 male applicants and 85,777 female applicants which comes to attendance percentage of 50.77 of male and 40.57 of female. The written examination passing marks were between 233.29 to 155 marks in descending order, and the total passed candidates were only 20,359. The statistics relating to the geographical clustering of Sub Inspector Examination, 2021 which reads as under: “Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment Exam 2021 was conducted for a total of 859 posts from 13 to 15 September 2021 at a total of 11 district headquarters. After stages like written exam, physical efficiency test, interview, and medical exam, a total of 892 Sub-Inspectors were selected between Rank 1 to Rank 3093. out of which a total of 838 selected candidates obtained appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector. The selection of the remaining 54 selected candidates was cancelled due to not being present for joining within the stipulated time limit. A total of 182 Sub-Inspectors have been selected between Rank 1 to Rank 200, who come from 25 districts out of total 33 (old districts) of Rajasthan, just like other exams. Also, these toppers have not been selected from any one exam center, but have come from exam centers of all 11 district headquarters, meaning the toppers selected in the exam are not related to any one geographical area. Geographically, the district-wise selection in Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment 2021 has been similar to previous Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector recruitments like 2010 and 2016; no abnormal and unexpected increase has been found from any district. Statistics related to Low Merit Difference in marks in Sub-Inspector Recruitment Exam 2021: The category-wise cut-off marks for selection are as follows (According to the mark sheet of 838 selected candidates released by RPSC): Cut-Off Marks (Out of 450) (Non TSP Area) Difference of Cut-off marks compared to General (Male) Average Marks obtained category wise Difference of average compared to General (Male) Number of Selected Candidate s Category wise Male General 327.31 0 344.51 0 179 OBC 329.89 -2.58 340.02 4.49 73 EWS 319.2 8.11 327.88 16.63 51 MBC 316.71 10.6 324.42 20.09 22 SC 282.84 44.47 296.93 47.58 63 ST 285.61 41.7 301.79 42.72 57 Ex Service Man (All) 251.76 75.55 274.08 70.43 91 Female General 294.48 32.83 319.18 25.33 82 OBC 295.57 31.74 307.69 36.82 37 EWS 284.76 42.55 298.36 43.15 13 MBC 253.34 73.79 276.07 68.44 8 SC 252.91 74.4 270.56 73.95 20 ST 259.75 67.56 271.27 73.24 19 Widow (All) 201.43 125.88 221.72 122.79 7 Divorce e (All) 183.44 143.87 236.76 107.75 31 Total 753 Cut-Off Marks (Out of 450) (Non TSP Area) Difference of Cut-off Marks compared to General (Male) Average Marks obtained category wise Difference of average compared to General (Male) Number of Selected Candidates Category Wise Male General 283.47 0 302.25 0 36 SC 260.08 23.39 268.63 35.39 3 ST 201.51 81.96 232.71 71.31 24 EX Service Man (All) 176.3 107.17 179.4 124.62 2 Female General 224.25 59.22 246.3 57.72 15 ST 193.08 90.39 211.67 92.35 5 Total 85 From the above merit cut-off marks, it is clear that there is a significant difference in category-wise cut-off marks. The category-wise cut-off marks are in a continuously decreasing order. The total difference in marks between the candidate selected at First Rank (Rank 1) (Total marks 385.71) and Last Rank (Rank 3093) (Total marks 176.3) is 209.41 marks, which is excessive. Therefore, from the said cut-off marks analysis, it is proved that like NEET UG 2024, in Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector Recruitment Exam 2021, the distribution of marks follows a normal bell-curve, in which there is a normal difference between top and bottom candidates. No abnormal pattern (like very little difference) was seen, which would be an indicator of mass cheating.”

56. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the appellants in the Sub Inspector Exam-2021 cannot be said to be in the same category as the recruitment examination cancelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharya (Chatterjee) and Ors. (supra) and a clear distinction can be drawn between the two. He also relied on comparative statistics of Sub Inspector Recruitment Examination, 2021 and 2016 to submit that out of total 838, only 64 candidates have been arrested and 9 are stated to be absconding. There are 90% selected persons against whom there are no allegations or even suspicions. Of these honestly selected Sub Inspectors, 39 have gone to other services and out of total 21 categories (TSP and non-TSP) no selected candidates from 13 categories have been arrested.

57. The interviews have been conducted without any rigging and the physical efficiency test was also conducted transparently. It is further submitted that so far as the active involvement of RPSC Members Babulal Katara, Ramuram Raika, are concerned, the SOG has completed the investigation and there is no further allegation of leakage, everyone benefited has been arrested and chain is now complete as per police investigation. Similarly, it is stated that the factors which were considered by the learned Single Judge in cancelling the examination cannot be said to be such which could be a reason to cancel the exam.

58. It is stated that Babulal Katara who was participating in the interview panel was debarred form the process from the date of his arrest, i.e., on 18.04.2023 and his involvement was discovered during the interviews. The finding of the learned Single Judge there were 6 members of the RPSC including the chairman who were involved in systemic leak undermining the examination has also not to be found to be correct by the SOG and only two have been charge sheeted. The SOG did not find the other members to be compromised and no evidence of biased interview has been found against them.

59. The allegation of use of private school invigilators resulting in diminishing the security has been countered by the learned counsel stating that the usage of private school is administrative necessity which is a regular practice. Merely using of private schools does not automatically diminish the security. The observations that the mandated security measures were not effectively implemented have been countered by saying that there was no such mandate in the Rule Book of RPSC, nor any such measure has been laid down in the SOP. Allegations of paper leak via groups like Kaler and Bishnoi gang have not been established and is only a theory. No videography was requisitioned by the State.

60. It is stated that the allegations were levelled and one Shivratan Moth was arrested, but the High Court made remarks regarding non-randomisation as structural flaw existing in every examination of RPSC. He states that there is no correlation between paper leak and further, with regard to marks being unequal, there has been normalisation process adopted, which has no bearing to the paper leak.

61. The counsel has also relied on the judgement of State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharya (Chatterjee) and Ors., in which it was held that: “In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and Others, this Court observed that a holistic view must be adopted by assessing the extent of unfair means used and whether it is possible to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. The court must ensure that allegations of malpractice are substantiated and that the material on record, including investigative reports, supports this conclusion. There must be at least some evidence for the court to reach such a conclusion. However, the standard of evidence need not be unduly strict. Specifically, the material on record need not point to a single, definitive conclusion that malpractice occurred at a systemic level. Nevertheless, there must be a real possibility of systemic malaise, as reflected in the material before the court. 19. The following principles emerge from the aforesaid discussion: When an in-depth factual inquiry reveals systemic irregularities such as malaise or fraud, that undermine the integrity of the entire selection process, the result should be cancelled in its entirety. However, if and when possible, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates should be done in consonance with fairness and equity. The decision to cancel the selection en masse must be based on the satisfaction derived from sufficient material collected through a fair and thorough investigation. It is not necessary for the material collected to conclusively prove malpractice beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of evidence should be reasonable certainty of systemic malaise. The probability test is applicable. Despite the inconvenience caused to untainted candidates, when broad and deep manipulation in the selection process is proven, due weightage has to be given to maintaining the purity of the selection process. Individual notice and hearing may not be necessary in all cases for practical reasons when the facts establish that the entire selection process is vitiated with illegalities at a large scale.”

62. A detailed chart has been mentioned along with written submission to the fact that Kailash Chand Sharma, Vinod Choudhary, Manju Ranwa, Priyanka Choudhary were witness for the SOG and Chetan Prakash Sharma was member of the investigation team and was a witness for SOG. Out of 25 writ petitioners, 4 failed in the written examinations, 21 participated in the physical efficiency test, 7 have failed to qualify the physical efficiency test, 13 appearing for interview and all of them failed to reach cut off.

63. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel who is also appearing for those who have passed the examination and have been given appointment submits that appropriate stage was required to be looked into as to when a decision can be taken to cancel the examination. He submits that the report of the SIT was prepared on the basis of a query raised as to how examination can be cancelled as is apparent from the directions issued and placed on record dated 20.03.2024. Thus, the SIT prepared a report with the purpose to inform as to how examination can be cancelled without applying whether the examination should be cancelled independently at that stage.

64. The learned Single Judge has failed to examine the said aspect. The percentage of tribal candidates reflects that there was no occasion for cancellation of the examination. Moreover, when such a direction was issued to the SOG, they conducted a surprise test, but did not declare the result. Although majority of the candidates who had passed the examination also cleared the surprise test.

65. Learned counsel submits that the entire basis of cancellation of the examination is that paper was leaked, it has come from the SOG report that the concerned paper was disclosed to those who parted with money. Thus, the leakage of paper can only be limited to those who paid for it. They have all been rounded up and have been arrested. Thus, it is not a case where a mass paper leak has occurred and everyone came to know about the paper. Moreover no invigilator or in-charge of the examination centre has been arrested or involved in mass cheating.

66. It was during Covid period and people were placed too far away from each other and therefore, it is not possible that the candidates would have copied from one another. Decision was taken to conduct the examination in three days mainly on account of Covid and the learned Single Judge has doubted the said aspect wrongfully.

67. The RPSC’s reply and the note sheet were read out by the learned Senior Counsel to submit that it was Covid times and in one room, only 24 candidates were allowed and therefore, it was not possible to conduct examination in one day. Decision was, therefore, taken to conduct it on three separate days. Randomised centres were allotted and additional affidavit has been filed in the case of Amar Singh where it was stated that relaxation of entry time by permitting candidates up-to 10 minutes after commencement cannot be construed as malpractice.

68. It is further submitted that as there were six different papers for the candidates, chances of paper leak become less. The decision was that of the Government and not RPSC and therefore, integrity of examination cannot be doubted only on the ground that the examination was conducted in three days. Only two persons were found using Bluetooth and for that reason the entire examination conducted in three stages would not have been cancelled. Those who have been found to be involved have already been charge-sheeted and many others have been arrested.

69. The State has conducted analysis report of top ten districts and in the report submitted there were 5 persons who were found to be using Bluetooth, 15 were dummy candidates and 61 were arrested on the basis of having knowledge of the paper. Out of 850 candidates, 421 subsequently passed RAS examination which reflects that these candidates were all genuine. Learned counsel has also happened to differentiate the case from that of State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharya (Chatterjee) and Ors. (supra) and submits that the facts of the said case were different. He has also relied on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Pal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.: 2014 6 SCC 644, in which it was held as under: “45. There is yet another crucial development which needs to be mentioned here. In the first instance, it is the State which had taken a decision to cancel the entire selection process. However, after the remand order passed in Inderpreet Singh Kahion case, in the exercise done by the Committee screening out the tainted from non-tainted candidates, the State came forward and showed its willingness to take back these candidates who were non-tainted and were selected on the basis of their merit. A specific affidavit to this effect was filed in the High Court. To the same effect the affidavit has been filed before us also. 46. We are of the opinion that once those untainted officers, who were appointed under the same environment, have been allowed to continue, there is no reason to deprive this benefit of such recourse to the PCS (Executive Branch) and Allied Services.”

70. Mr. Vikash Balia Senior Counsel submits that the examination can only be cancelled if there is a design flaw and systemic failure. Attempts should always be made to separate tainted from non-tainted. He relied on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam and Ors. Vs. Arabinda Rabha and Ors.: Civil Appeal No.2350/2025 in which it held as under: “48. There were no serious grievances of malpractices in Rajesh P.U. (supra) either. In fact, this Court held that "applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation". It was concluded that "the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational" (emphasis supplied by us). 49. Paragraph 35 of the decision in Sachin Kumar (supra) has been relied on. There, this Court held that: "35. In deciding this batch of SLPs, we need not reinvent the wheel. Over the last five decades, several decisions of this Court have dealt with the fundamental issue of when the process of an examination can stand vitiated. Essentially, the answer to the issue turns upon whether the irregularities in the process have taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of the process. There are cases which border upon or cross over into the domain of fraud as a result of which the credibility and legitimacy of the process is denuded. This constitutes one end of the spectrum where the authority conducting the examination or convening the selection process comes to the conclusion that as a result of supervening event or circumstances, the process has lost its legitimacy, leaving no option but to cancel it in its entirety. Where a decision along those lines is taken, it does not turn upon a fact-finding exercise into individual acts involving the use of malpractices or unfair means. Where a recourse to unfair means has taken place on a systemic scale, it may be difficult to segregate the tainted from the untainted participants in the process. Large-scale irregularities including those which have the effect of denying equal access to similarly circumstanced candidates are suggestive of a malaise which has eroded the credibility of the process. At the other end of the spectrum are cases where some of the participants in the process who appear at the examination or selection test are guilty of irregularities. In such a case, it may well be possible to segregate persons who are guilty of wrongdoing from others who have adhered to the rules and to exclude the former from the process. In such a case, those who are innocent of wrongdoing should not pay a price for those who are actually found to be involved in irregularities. By segregating the wrongdoers, the selection of the untainted candidates can be allowed to pass muster by taking the selection process to its logical conclusion. This is not a mere matter of administrative procedure but as a principle of service jurisprudence it finds embodiment in the constitutional duty by which public bodies have to act fairly and reasonably. A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices and to penalise them for their wrongdoing. It would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrongdoing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrongdoers 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. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process. Now it is in the backdrop of these principles, that it becomes appropriate to advert to the precedents of this Court which hold the field." (emphasis supplied by us) 50. What follows from the above is that each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts. It has to be pleaded and proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the decision of the recruiting authority (to cancel the entire process because of wrongdoing by some tainted elements and not save a part of the process, to the extent it could be saved, to the utter detriment of the interests of the innocent) is wholly disproportionate to the risk and overly severe relative to what is at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational.”

71. Learned counsel submits that the State has the exclusive domain.

72. Mr. Yuvraj Samant, the learned counsel submits that the learned Judge has made scathing remarks on Chairman and has given findings in Para 140 of the judgement which could not have been made without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Chairman. Mr. Deepak Chauhan, appearing for RPSC Member, Ms. Manju Sharma submits that she was not given any opportunity of hearing, but observations have been made which are without basis.

73. Similarly, also for another member of Sangeeta Arya submits that in the para-No. 120 of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, observations have been made wherein there is no proof for involvement.

74. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a similar case of State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharya (Chatterjee) and Ors. (supra) has submitted that while untainted appointments are required to be protected and their invalidation would lead to heartburn and anguish, but the purity of selection process is paramount and has to be given highest priority.

75. He submits that the factual finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge who has gone into the details relating to involvement of the two RPSC Members, one of whom was already found to be involved in selling paper of another competitive examination conducted by the RPSC, but was still allowed to be part of the interview process is sufficient to hold that there has been a systemic failure in maintaining the purity of the examination and therefore, the entire examination deserves to be quashed.

76. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents, Mr. RP Singh states that the chargesheets filed by the SOG clearly demonstrate that the authenticity of the examination as a whole has been vitiated, owing to mass paper leakage and irregularities committed, rendering it impossible to segregate the tainted and untainted candidates.

77. Learned counsel states that the total number of accused arrested by SOG till date are 138. Several of those arrested have cleared the written exam using unfair means and also cleared subsequent stages but did not get finally selected owing to not having requisite rank within the 859 posts in their respective categories.

78. Learned Senior counsel, RP Singh further states that the alleged suppression regarding withdrawal of the previous writ petition is not material or relevant so as to affect the merits of the present case. For this, he relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. BSK Realtors LLP (2024) 7 SCC 370. He further relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SJS Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 7 SCC 166 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the dismissal of a writ petition to be incorrect as the suit had been withdrawn by the appellant, especially when all the facts necessary to decide the case on merits were before the court.

79. He submits that since the earlier writ petition was dismissed in limine without adjudication on merits, the principles of res judicata are not attracted. For this, he relies on National Confederation of Officers Association of Central Public Sector Enterprises v. Union of India (2022) 4 SCC 764 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “66 i) The summary dismissal of an earlier petition under Article 32 of the Constitution does not bar the present writ petition on grounds of res judicata as there has been no substantive decision on the merits of the issues.”

80. He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daryao v. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1457 wherein it was held: ‘‘26. We must now proceed to state our conclusion on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. We hold that if a writ petition filed by a party under Article 226 is considered on the merits as a contested matter and is dismissed the decision thus pronounced would continue to bind the parties unless it is otherwise modified or reversed by appeal or other appropriate proceedings permissible under the Constitution. It would not be open to a party to ignore the said judgment and move this Court under Article 32 by an original petition made on the same facts and for obtaining the same or similar orders or writs. If the petition filed in the High Court under Article 226 is dismissed not on the merits but because of the laches of the party applying for the writ or because it is held that the party had an alternative remedy available to it, then the dismissal of the writ petition would not constitute a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32 except in cases where and if the facts thus found by the High Court may themselves be relevant even under Article 32. If a writ petition is dismissed in limine and an order is pronounced in that behalf, whether or not the dismissal would constitute a bar would depend upon the nature of the order. If the order is on the merits it would be a bar; if the order shows that the dismissal was for the reason that the petitioner was guilty of laches or that he had an alternative remedy it would not be a bar, except in cases which we have already indicated. If the petition is dismissed in limine without passing a speaking order then such dismissal cannot be treated as creating a bar of res judicata. It is true that, prima facie, dismissal in limine even without passing a speaking order in that behalf may strongly suggest that the Court took the view that there was no substance in the petition at all; but in the absence of a speaking order it would not be easy to decide what factors weighed in the mind of the Court and that makes it difficult and unsafe to hold that such a summary dismissal is a dismissal on merits and as such constitutes a bar of res judicata against a similar petition filed under Article 32. If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the Court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other. It is in the light of this decision that we will now proceed to examine the position in the six petitions before us.’’

81. The learned counsel further brings the court’s attention to the SOG report dated 13.08.2024 which categorically stated that segregation was impossible due to the prolonged nature of the investigation. RPSC failed to conduct videography and did not maintain clear photographic records of candidates, making identification of dummy candidates impossible. The investigation into paper leak networks involving several gangs remains incomplete, rendering any meaningful segregation. Even after more than two years, no segregation has been achieved. In these circumstances, the authenticity, purity and confidentiality of the recruitment process stand irreparably vitiated, reflecting a foundational collapse and institutional failure in the selection mechanism.

82. We have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the entire record.

83. The learned Single Judge has meticulously dealt with the details relating to the examination which we need not again to repeat.

84. The questions before us which need to be answered is firstly, whether the writ petition was required to be dismissed on the ground of being not maintainable as the earlier writ petition filed by Kailash Chand Sharma and some other petitioners had been dismissed as withdrawn without giving any liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Secondly, whether the petition was required to be dismissed on account of suppression of material facts. Thirdly, whether the petition was required to be dismissed having illegally obtained documents which had a bearing on the case. Fourthly, whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside on the ground that there was no prayer to set aside the decision of the State Government for allowing the selection to continue and cancelling the entire examination to be premature. Fifthly, whether the decision taken by the State Government of protecting the selection and attempting to find out the only tainted candidates can be said to be correct and sixthly, whether on account of wide spread leakages, systemic irregularity has been committed in the examination.

85. This Court is unable to accept the appellants’ contention that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioners did not disclose the filing and withdrawal of an earlier writ petition in the year 2022. The law is well settled that suppression of facts, to be fatal, must relate to material facts, namely those facts which have a direct and substantive bearing on the merits of the controversy or possess the potential to influence the ultimate adjudication. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. BSK Realtors LLP, (2024) 7 SCC 370 the Supreme Court has categorically held that the doctrine of suppression is not meant to operate as a technical weapon but is intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process, and that only such suppression which would render the decision unjust or distort the decision-making process can justify dismissal.

86. This Court finds that the non-disclosure of the earlier writ petition, which was withdrawn without liberty, does not in itself detract from or dilute the core issue raised in the present proceedings, namely, the systemic compromise of the examination process due to widespread paper leakage and the consequent impossibility of segregation between tainted and untainted candidates.

87. The objection raised by the appellants with regard to the manner in which the first SOG/SIT report dated 13.08.2024 was procured and placed on record also does not merit acceptance. Even if the said report was confidential in nature and not in the public domain, and that its procurement was not in a strictly authorised manner, the same by itself is not a valid ground to exclude it from judicial consideration. The Supreme Court in Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2019 2019 6 SCC 1 has authoritatively clarified the legal position in this regard. In the said judgment, the Court observed: 9.“An issue has been raised by the learned Attorney with regard to the manner in which the three documents in question had been procured and placed before the Court… That apart, even assuming that the documents have not been procured in a proper manner should the same be shut out of consideration by the Court? In Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection … this Court has taken the view that the ‘test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy, unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out’.”

88. We are of the considered view that the first SOG/SIT report dated 13.08.2024, which goes to the very root of the controversy by detailing the systemic compromise of the examination process, cannot be excluded from consideration solely on the ground of the manner of its procurement.

89. The relevance and probative value of the report, particularly in a matter involving public recruitment and public interest, outweigh objections founded on technicalities relating to its source. Consequently, the said report is liable to be considered by this Court while adjudicating upon the legality of the examination process and the consequential decision to cancel the same.

90. This Court has duly considered the settled principle of law that a court does not sit as an appellate authority over the opinions of expert committees. However, it is equally well settled that such expert opinions are only advisory in nature and do not possess binding force. The Court retains its plenary jurisdiction to independently assess the material on record and to arrive at its own conclusions in accordance with law. An expert committee’s report may aid the adjudicatory process, but it cannot substitute judicial application of mind nor foreclose the Court’s authority to take a different view for cogent reasons.

91. The Supreme Court, in Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, (2023) 8 SCC 35, has authoritatively clarified the legal position governing reliance upon expert committee reports and held as under: 21. A reading of the above, clearly indicates that the NGT is a judicial body and therefore exercises adjudicatory function. The very nature of an adjudicatory function would carry with it the requirement that principles of natural justice are complied with, particularly when there is an adversarial system of hearing of the cases before the Tribunal or for that matter before the Courts in India. The NGT though is a special adjudicatory body constituted by an Act of Parliament, nevertheless, the discharge of its function must be in accordance with law which would also include compliance with the principles of natural justice as envisaged in Section 19(1) of the Act. 23. Therefore, applying the aforesaid principle to the cases that come up before the NGT, if the NGT intends to rely upon an Expert Committee report or any other relevant material that comes to its knowledge, it should disclose in advance to the party so as to give an opportunity for discussion and rebuttal. Thus, factual information which comes to the knowledge of NGT on the basis of the report of the Committee constituted by it, if to be relied upon by the NGT, then, the same must be disclosed to the parties for their response and a reasonable opportunity must be afforded to present their observations or comments on such a report to the Tribunal. 24. It is needless to observe that the experts' opinion is only by way of assistance in arriving at a final conclusion. But we find that in the instant case the report of the Expert Committee as well as the recommendations have been made the basis of the directions and such an approach is improper. 25. We have perused the impugned order [Ashwani Kumar Dubey v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine NGT 120] of the NGT and particularly para “16” which has been extracted above. It is apparent that the appellant(s) herein who were respondents before the NGT were not given an opportunity to file their objections to the recommendations made by the Committee constituted by the NGT which is apparent by the fact that the recommendations were uploaded on 15-1-2022 and the final order [Ashwani Kumar Dubey v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine NGT 120] of the NGT was passed three days later on i.e. 18-1-2022. Thus, this is a clear case of there being non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. On the said ground alone the impugned order [Ashwani Kumar Dubey v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine NGT 120] is set aside, the matter is remanded to the NGT for re-consideration from the stage of the recommendations filed by the Expert Committee constituted by the NGT. The appellant(s) herein are permitted to file their objections, if they are so advised. The NGT shall consider the objections, if any, filed to the recommendations and thereafter dispose of the applications in accordance with law and after giving a reasonable opportunity to all parties.”

92. We find merit in the contention that the report of the Expert Committee cannot be treated as final or binding. The adjudicatory function vested in this Court requires an independent evaluation of the material on record, and the Court is entitled, indeed duty-bound, to arrive at its own conclusions on the basis of law, reason, and constitutional principles. Acceptance of an expert report cannot be automatic, nor can it substitute judicial scrutiny.

93. This Court is of the view that while expert committee reports are entitled to due consideration and respect, they do not bind the Court, nor do they curtail the Court’s jurisdiction to arrive at findings that may differ from such reports, provided the same are supported by cogent reasoning and adherence to constitutional and legal principles. The expert opinion remains a tool of assistance, not a substitute for judicial determination.

94. Vide an order dated 8th July 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav (supra) had laid down three aspects to be considered prior to deciding whether a re-test ought to be conducted or not: “a. Whether the alleged breach took place at a systemic level; b. Whether the breach was of a nature which affected the integrity of the entire examination process; and c. Whether it was possible to segregate the beneficiaries of the fraud from the untainted students.”

95. The investigation reveals multiple instances of paper leaks through organized networks. On 13.09.2021, Rajaram, who operated Matrix Coaching Institute in Bikaner, allegedly photographed both examination papers prior to the exam and transmitted them to the Kaler gang, following which the papers were widely circulated on social media the same day, indicating that the Kaler gang had access to the leaked material. In a separate instance, the paper was also leaked from Ravindra Bal Bharti Senior Secondary School, Santinagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur, and was found to have been extensively circulated across Rajasthan through various social media channels and site handlers, pointing to the involvement of another organized network, namely the Jagdish gang.

96. Further, the conduct of the examination suffered from serious procedural lapses that compromised its integrity. There was no internet shutdown, no biometric or fingerprint verification system, no installation of jammers, and no effective videography at examination centres; moreover, videographic records were not provided to SOG officials despite specific requests. The admit cards issued by RPSC also lacked clear photographs, and no mechanisms were in place to detect fake admit cards or prevent impersonation by dummy candidates, thereby severely undermining the fairness, security and credibility of the entire examination process.

97. While the subsequent SOG report did mention the possibility of segregation of tainted and non-tainted candidates (unlike the first report), the investigative findings largely remain undisputed in both reports. Furthermore, since the papers have been shared on social media, the leak cannot be said not to have been widespread. In this regard, it would be apposite to quote the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav (supra):”Once shared through social media, it is exceedingly difficult to trace the journey of a post or message or document.”

98. Furthermore, these lapses make it evident that such failures were not localised, rather were the loopholes identified in the conduct of the examination as a whole. Merely because a few tainted candidates were found amongst those selected does not mean that the possibility of there being more than the identified number of tainted candidates cannot be said to be highly improbable.

99. From the above observation in Vanshika Yadav (supra) on social media, it is evident that once the papers were uploaded on social media, it became nearly impossible to trace all those who then accessed the same.

100. Before proceeding further, it is important to lay down the lapses brought to light by the ld Single judge as well as in the SOG report dated 13.08.2024: (1) As per the circular issued by RPSC, the exam could only be conducted at 7 centres situated at the divisional headquarters. However, the exams were also conducted at the centres situated at Alwar, Pali, Bhilwara and Rajsamand. Furthermore, the RPSC or nodal officer did not properly supervise the allotment of invigilators or centre for the exam, which conducted in private schools and invigilated by private invigilators. (2) There were no internet shutdown, biometric/fingerprinting system, jammer installation and videography in the examination centres. Furthermore, videography was not provided to the SOG officials despites being requested by them. (3) The admit cards issued by RPSC did not contain clear pictures and they did not have any equipment in place for detection of fake admit cards by dummy candidates (4) The normalization process was illegally undertaken by RPSC, the details of which were withheld under the Right to Information Act 2005 (5) Paper Leak by Kaler Gang- On 13.09.2021, Rajaram (who was running Matrix coaching institute in Bikaner) took photos of both the papers prior to the exams and sent the same to Kalers. The paper was widely circulated on social media on 13.09.2021 and Kaler gang had access to the same. (6) Paper Leak by Jagdish Gang- It was found that the paper leaked from Ravindra Bal Bharti Senior Secondary School, Santinagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur was found to be widely circulated on social media to site handlers in across the state of Rajasthan.

101. In the context of deviation from planned examination centres, it would be apposite to quote Section 8 of The Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act 2022: ‘‘8. No place other than examination center shall be used for public examination.- No person who is entrusted or engaged with the work pertaining to public examination shall use or cause to be used any place, other than the examination center, for the purpose of holding public examination.’’

102. Furthermore, in deciding whether such lapses affected the integrity of the examination, reference can also be to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra), wherein the following conclusion was reached upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: ‘‘42. In spite of the factual background and the credible evidence indicating irregularities, WBSSC initially did try and cover up the lapses and illegalities. The cover up itself has made the verification and ascertainment more difficult or rather impossible given the scale of camouflage and dressing up done at each stage. We are convinced that the entire selection process was intentionally compromised due to the illegalities involved.’’

103. The investigation reveals the involvement of organised gangs, site-handlers operating across the State, and a large-scale use of dummy candidates, with no effective mechanism having been devised by the RPSC to identify genuine candidates vis-à-vis impersonators.

104. The investigation further discloses that leaked papers were circulated to countless candidates through multiple intermediaries, several beneficiaries are yet to be identified, and investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC remains pending against 89 accused persons, including trainee Sub-Inspectors. In such circumstances, the Court is unable to accept the contention that a meaningful segregation between tainted and untainted candidates is either feasible or reliable.

105. The fact that the SOG initially recommended cancellation of the entire examination on 13.08.2024 on the ground that segregation was impossible, and that despite a subsequent report dated 25.06.2025 suggesting a theoretical possibility of segregation, no such segregation has been completed even after more than two years of the examination, reinforces the conclusion that the contamination was deep-rooted and incapable of being surgically isolated.

106. The Supreme Court, in Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE (2015) 6 SCC 573 has cautioned that withholding or excluding only identified beneficiaries cannot be an effective solution where the process itself stands vitiated, observing that there always remains a lurking possibility of unidentified beneficiaries gaining an unfair advantage. 16. Segregation only of the already 44 identified candidates stated to be the beneficiaries of the unprincipled manoeuvre by withholding their results for the time being, in our comprehension cannot be the solution to the problem that confronts all of us. Not only thereby, if the process is allowed to advance, it would be pushed to a vortex of litigation pertaining thereto in the foreseeable future, the prospects of the candidates would not only remain uncertain and tentative, they would also remain plagued with the prolonged anguish and anxiety if involved in the ordeal of court cases. Acting on this option, would in our estimate, amount to driving knowingly the students, who are not at fault, to an uncertain future with their academic career in jeopardy on many counts. Further, there would also be a lurking possibility of unidentified beneficiary candidates stealing a march over them, on the basis of the advantages availed by them through the underhand dealings as revealed. Having regard to the fact, that the course involved with time would yield the future generations of doctors of the country, who would be in charge of public health, their inherent merit to qualify for taking the course can by no means be compromised.”

107. The material on record demonstrates that the contamination was not isolated or peripheral but went to the very root of the examination process. Therefore, notwithstanding that the relief in Vanshika Yadav (supra) was declined on its own factual matrix, the principle laid down therein squarely applies to the present case and, in fact, fortifies the conclusion that where an examination is shown to be systemically compromised, cancellation of the entire process is not only permissible but warranted in law.

108. We have also carefully gone through the latest report submitted by the Additional Director General of Police, SOG Rajasthan dated 19.01.2026 which reflects that there was an active involvement of the RPSC Members, namely Babulal Katara and Ramu Ram Raika and there have been 138 persons arrested and out of them, charge-sheet has already been filed against 133 accused. That apart, 85 accused are absconding. Out of the aforesaid, 51 Trainee Sub Inspectors who had finally been declared passed and sent for the training have been arrested. It has also come on record that RPSC members have leaked the paper. There was paper leakage from the examination centres by Jagdish Bishnoi Gang and there were also paper leakage and solving of papers via Bluetooth. The investigation is still continuing. There are also dummy candidates who have participated in the written examination by way of impersonation. The entire written examination, thus, suffers from a systemic failure of purity of examination. The integrity of the examination process has been breached thoroughly.

109. We are not impressed by the submission raised by the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Advocate General that as the examination was consisting of three stages, the candidates who have cleared the three stages ought to be protected.

110. The Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 lays down the criteria and method of examination. The candidates who cleared the examination alone can participate in the physical test. If dummy candidates are allowed in a huge number to participate in the written examination and there is a leakage of paper which is handed over by the RPSC Members themselves who are the protectors of the examination and holding constitutional post. The RPSC has been formed under Article 315 of the Constitution of India and the examination was conducted under Article 320. It shakes the entire conscience of the Court of such examination, where the persons responsible for conducting the examination are found to be involved in malpractice, the systemic failure is imminent as has already come on record. Not only the Members of the RPSC provided the paper to their own kith and kin, but also to several gangs operating.

111. Involvement of Chairman and other Members of RPSC although may not be patently apparent, but latently, it can be seen that it has been rightly assessed by the learned Single Judge that their involvement by remaining passively silent cannot be ruled out. In fact, the Chairman’s role apparently seems to be dubious when he allows that Member of the RPSC to participate in the interview in spite of having known of the same Member being already involved in paper leakage relating to another examination.

112. We are also not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for other members of the RPSC that they were required to be given the opportunity of hearing. The learned Single Judge was not required, nor be deem it appropriate to observe that a hearing is required to be given to Members of an examining body which is found to be involved in reducing the entire examination to a farce. The very faith of the general public in the Public Service Commission has been put to question on account of the conduct of the Members. The Members are jointly and severally liable for such conduct. The State Government and the Hon’ble Governor should take steps for getting such Members relieved from their duties. This would be a little step for maintaining the sanctity of the Public Service Commission.

113. In fact, certain guiding principles ought to be laid down by the Legislature for selecting the Members of the Public Service Commission. We notice that the Members of the Public Service Commission are being selected at the whims and fancies of the Government in power without examining their integrity. Such selection has resulted in the cancellation of this examination.

114. Earlier incidents of the Members of the Public Service Commission being involved in leakage of papers and lowering down the sanctity of the Public Service Commission in various other States has been noticed even outside Rajasthan, such as Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) and Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (UKSSSC) which demonstrates that paper leaks frequently originate from within the recruitment bodies themselves, involving commission officials and insiders, thereby undermining the integrity of the entire selection process.

115. The Legislature should, therefore, sensitise itself to such phenomenon occurring, which not only demoralises the youth, but affects the overall governance of the executive.

116. We, therefore, hope that the present case would be taken as an example by the Legislature to make appropriate correction and amendments at the State level for the selection of Members of the Public Service Commission. They have to be persons with the highest integrity. The staff of the Public Service Commission also requires to be investigated and the SOG must examine as to how the leakage occurred in the RPSC because a single person cannot alone be involved in the same. There must be other persons also in the RPSC who may have been involved.

117. With the aforesaid observations, D.B. Special Appeals (Writ) Nos.1364/2025, 1074/2025, 1075/2025, 1076/2025, 1080/2025, 1209/2025, 1210/2025, 1282/2025, 1311/2025, 1334/2025, 1346/2025, 1347/2025, 1378/2025, 1405/2025, 1406/2025, 1417/2025 and 1464/2025 are, hereby, dismissed. The judgement passed by the learned Single Judge dated 28.08.2025 is upheld to the extent of quashing of examination and directions issued therein. The directions issued by the learned single judge shall now be implemented.

118. We, however, hold that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge for initiating suo motu proceedings is not required in view of our findings that the issue involved before the learned Single Judge was purely a service matter and the PIL would not lie in service matters. Hence, the D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.13601/2025 is also dismissed.

119. In view of our findings, as above, the respondents shall now allow the candidates to give benefit of age relaxation, as already directed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement.

120. All pending applications also stand disposed off.

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ