The Delhi high court has rebuked the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for cancelling a candidate’s candidature and barring him from examinations without giving him an opportunity to defend himself, observing that such a ban at the cusp of a career is “almost akin to civil death”.
“The consequences of cancellation of candidature of a candidate and debarment in an examination cannot be forgotten. It results in far more than a mere road block in the career of the candidate concerned. The news spreads. The candidate is tarnished as one who does not play fair. The decision results in long-lasting social stigma which, perhaps, may haunt the candidate for the remainder of his life. To a candidate at the cusp of his professional career, it is almost akin to civil death,” a bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Nivedita Anil Sharma said in its September 28 verdict, released on October 2.
The verdict was delivered while hearing a SSC petition challenging a January 7 order of the tribunal, which had directed the commission to comply with the principles of natural justice before cancelling a candidate’s candidature and imposing a three-year bar on his appearing in any examination conducted by the SSC.
The candidate had appeared for the SSC’s Multi-Tasking Staff Examination, 2016. On September 29, 2017, he was issued a memorandum informing him that his candidature had been cancelled and that he had been debarred from appearing in SSC examinations for three years.
{{/usCountry}}The candidate had appeared for the SSC’s Multi-Tasking Staff Examination, 2016. On September 29, 2017, he was issued a memorandum informing him that his candidature had been cancelled and that he had been debarred from appearing in SSC examinations for three years.
{{/usCountry}}He subsequently approached the tribunal, which passed the January 7 order directing the SSC to follow the principles of natural justice before taking such action.
The SSC had contended before the tribunal that the candidate had assisted a neighbouring candidate seated beside him during the examination. The allegation was based on the observations of the Central Supervisor/Hall Invigilator, who had reportedly submitted a report to the SSC.
In its petition before the high court, SSC’s lawyer said that the decision was taken on the basis of the report provided by the Supervisor, who was invigilating the examination.
In its order, the court, however, dismissed SSC’s petition, saying that the Supervisor cannot be treated as gospel. “At the very least, the respondent was required to be visited with a show cause notice, inviting his comments on the report and afforded an opportunity of being heard before an action for cancellation of candidature was taken. The SSC did not deem it appropriate to extend the courtesy of granting such an opportunity to the respondent,” it said.
It also criticised the SSC for filing the petition. “This is, to say the least, is an extremely unhappy state of affairs. We are completely at a loss as to how the SSC can claim to be aggrieved by such an order. Indeed, had the SSC complied with the order, and issued a show cause notice to the respondent, this litigation itself could have been avoided,” the court said.