Unfair means in public recruitment exam: Supreme Court quashes HC order granting bail to 2 accused

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed an order granting bail to two persons accused of compromising with the sanctity of a public recruitment exam, saying this possibly affected many others who put in earnest effort in the hope of securing a job.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said such acts represented possible chinks in people's faith in public administration and the executive.

"In India, the reality is that there are far more takers of government jobs than there are jobs available. Be that as it may, each job which has a clearly delineated entry process with prescribed examination and/or interview process has only to be filled in accordance thereof," the bench said.

It said absolute scrupulousness in the recruitment process instils and rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those truly deserving of the positions are the ones who have deservedly been appointed to such posts.

The apex court delivered its verdict on the appeals filed by Rajasthan challenging a May last year order of the state's high court.

The high court had granted bail to the two accused in connection with an FIR lodged for alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022.

It was alleged in the FIR that the accused had compromised with the sanctity of the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022.

The FIR claimed that another person had allegedly appeared as a "dummy candidate" in place of one of them. It also alleged that the attendance sheet was tampered with and another person's photograph was affixed to the original admit card.

In its verdict delivered on March 7, the apex court noted that both the accused had first approached the trial court which rejected their respective bail applications.

It said considerations by the high court of lack of criminal antecedents and the period of custody were valid criteria for the grant of bail. But the court, while giving due credence to them, cannot lose sight of the primary offence and its effect on society, the SC bench said.

"Surely there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job. We concur with the view of the trial court that they are not entitled to the benefit of bail," the bench said.

The top court said it is also true that every person has a presumption of innocence working in their favour till and such time the offence they are charged with stands proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Let them stand trial and let it be established by the process of law, that the respondent-accused have indeed not committed any crime," it said.

The bench said it was conscious of the fact that bail once granted was not to be set aside ordinarily and it wholeheartedly endorsed this view.

"The view taken hereinabove, however, has been taken keeping in view the overall impact of the alleged acts of the respondent-accused and its effect on society," it said.

While allowing the state's appeals, the bench clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of examining the proprietary of the grant of bail and should not be construed as remarks on the merits of the matter.

It set aside the high court's order granting bail to the accused and directed them to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks.

The bench said as the trial in the case was in progress, it would be open for the accused to apply for bail afresh before the court concerned.