Exoneration in Inquiry Does Not Revive Cancelled Recruitment, Says Uttarakhand High Court

Three candidates cleared in a forensic OMR inquiry still lost their appointment claim after the High Court held that exoneration from malpractice creates no vested right to selection.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dismissed three writ petitions on 16 June 2026, rejecting the claim of candidates who sought appointment as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari on the strength of a forensic inquiry that had exonerated them from OMR sheet manipulation. Justice Pankaj Purohit, sitting singly, held that once a recruitment process is cancelled and a fresh selection is conducted in its place, exoneration from the original irregularity neither revives the cancelled process nor creates any right to appointment against vacancies arising under subsequent recruitment advertisements. The Commission's rejection of the petitioners' representations was found to be neither arbitrary nor illegal.

The Recruitment Process and Its Cancellation

The Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (UKSSSC) issued an advertisement on 26 November 2015 inviting applications for 196 posts of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. The three petitioners — Madhu Bala, Shubham Kumar Joshi, and Surendra Singh Chauhan — participated in the selection process and appeared in the written examination held on 6 March 2016. They were declared successful.

Complaints of manipulation of OMR answer sheets followed. The State Government constituted an inquiry committee, and on the basis of an interim inquiry report, the Commission cancelled the entire selection process by Office Memorandum dated 16 June 2017.

That cancellation was challenged before the High Court in WPSS No. 2105 of 2017 (Kamal Bhatt and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others). The Court directed a restricted re-examination limited to candidates who had appeared in the original examination. The re-examination was conducted on 25 February 2018 and a fresh merit list was prepared.

The final inquiry report, dated 4 October 2018, was based on forensic examination of the OMR sheets. It identified the specific candidates whose answer sheets were found tainted. The petitioners' names did not appear among those candidates. Claiming they stood exonerated, they asserted a right to be considered for appointment.

The 2020 Advertisement and Earlier Writ Petition

The Commission issued a fresh advertisement on 6 November 2020 for recruitment to the same post of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. The petitioners approached the High Court in WPSS No. 1753 of 2020, seeking consideration of their candidature against available vacancies. That writ petition was disposed of on 9 March 2026 with a direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioners' claim in accordance with law.

Pursuant to that direction, the petitioners submitted representations. The Commission rejected those representations by Office Memorandum dated 13 April 2026, on the ground that the recruitment process had attained finality after the 2018 re-examination and the petitioners were not included in the final select list. The three present writ petitions challenged that rejection.

Petitioners' Arguments

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vivek Kathait, argued that the Office Memorandum dated 13 April 2026 was arbitrary and passed without application of mind, in disregard of the earlier directions of the Court. The Commission, he submitted, had been directed to examine whether the petitioners could be considered against available vacancies in light of their exoneration, but instead rejected their claim solely because they were not selected in the 2018 re-examination — without addressing the real controversy.

It was contended that the final inquiry report established that the irregularities were neither pervasive nor incapable of identification. Since forensic examination had specifically identified the tainted candidates and the petitioners were not among them, there was no justification for denying them consideration. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2006) 11 SCC 356, and Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu, (2003) 7 SCC, for the proposition that where tainted candidates can be identified and segregated, wholesale denial of relief to innocent candidates is impermissible.

The petitioners also clarified that they were not seeking cancellation of any appointment already made or removal of any serving employee. Their claim was limited to consideration against existing and available vacancies in the cadre, which would not prejudice any third-party rights. The action of the respondents was also challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

State and Commission's Response

Counsel for the respondents, Mr. K.N. Joshi for the State and Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal for UKSSSC, submitted that the petitioners had no vested right to appointment merely because they had participated in the 2015 recruitment process. The original selection stood cancelled; a re-examination was conducted pursuant to the Court's directions in Kamal Bhatt; and the recruitment process attained finality thereafter. The petitioners were not selected in that process and could not claim appointment against vacancies arising under subsequent advertisements. Mere exoneration from malpractice, it was argued, does not confer any right to appointment, and the impugned order was passed after due consideration of the representations.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Purohit accepted the respondents' position. The Court held that once the original selection process was cancelled and a fresh selection was conducted in terms of the directions issued in Kamal Bhatt and others, the rights of all candidates became subject to the outcome of that fresh process. The petitioners admittedly did not secure selection in the 2018 re-examination.

On the central question, the Court was direct: “Mere exoneration from allegations of malpractice does not confer any vested right to appointment.” The final inquiry report may establish that the petitioners were not involved in any irregularity, but it neither revives the cancelled recruitment process nor creates a right in their favour to seek appointment against vacancies arising under subsequent recruitment advertisements. Vacancies advertised subsequently constitute separate recruitment processes governed by independent selection procedures.

The Court also addressed the earlier order in WPSS No. 1753 of 2020. That order had merely required the Commission to consider the petitioners' representations. The Commission did so and rejected the claim on the ground that the recruitment process had attained finality and the petitioners were not in the final select list. That conclusion, the Court found, could not be characterised as arbitrary or illegal.

On the Supreme Court precedents cited by the petitioners regarding segregation of tainted and untainted candidates, the Court distinguished them on the basis that the issue in the present matter was not whether the petitioners were involved in malpractice. The question was whether exoneration entitles candidates to appointment despite their non-selection in the recruitment process that ultimately attained finality. The Court answered that question in the negative.

Outcome

All three writ petitions — WPSS No. 1571 of 2026, WPSS No. 1573 of 2026, and WPSS No. 1574 of 2026 — were dismissed. No order as to costs was made.