State Of West Bengal VS Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) 2025 INSC 437 - Public Employment - Selection Process - Fraud
Public Employment - Selection Process - 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.
Constitution of India - Article 226 - Evidence Act does not strictly apply to the proceedings in a Writ Court and the decision is rendered based on the evidence and material on record. (Para 39)
Acquiescence, delay and laches- They have distinct characteristics, though the underlying principle remains one of estoppel. Laches refers to remissness or slackness, involving unreasonable delay or negligence in seeking equitable relief, which prejudices the other party. It arises from the neglect of a party to assert their right, thereby preventing them from obtaining relief - The principle of acquiescence also does not apply, as it assumes knowledge of the act, followed by passive acceptance- Delay, as a general principle, encompasses both laches and acquiescence, and delay is always fact-specific. (Para 43)
Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice cannot be invoked to validate the fraud that has occurred. These principles are not rigid or inflexible; rather, they must be applied with due regard to the specific facts and circumstances at hand. (Para 44)
