Ankit Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another on 09 Dec 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Niteesh Kumar, Sri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anuj Kudeshia, learned Additional Advocate General, who was called upon by this Court, assisted by Sri Badrul Hasan learned AGA and Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla learned AGA, appearing for the State.

2. By means of the present application the applicants namely Ankit Kumar s/o Sanjeev Singh and Sachin Kumar s/o Mange Ram has sought the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. Case No. 111409 of 2022; State Versus Umesh Kumar & others, arising out of Case Crime /First Information Report No. Case Crime no 129 of 2022, Under Section- 420 I.P.C, 9 U.P. Sarvjanik Pariksha Adhiniyam & 66D I. T Act Police Station Mahanagar District Lucknow Pending in the court of Learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Custom) Lucknow, impugned cognizance / summoning order dated 15-10-2022 passed by Learned Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Custom) Lucknow, Under Section 420 I.P.C, 9 U.P. Sarvjanik Pariksha Adhiniyam & 66D I. T Act and charge sheet no. 01 of 2022 Dated 12-07-2022 submitted by the Investigation Officer against the petitioners in aforesaid Case Crime Number and as well as order dated 07-11-2025 whereby trial court framed the charges against the petitioners in the aforesaid sections as contained in Annexure no. 1, 2 & 3 to this petition, in the interest of law and justice."

Brief facts of the case are as under:- (i) For recruitment of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police (Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment, 2020-21 an advertisement was published on 24.02.2021. (ii) In the aforesaid advertisement, total 9534 vacancies were 2 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 advertised. 9027 vacancies for Sub-Inspector in Civil Police, 484 vacancies for Platoon Commander in PAC and 23 vacancies for Fire Station Second Officer (FSSO) in Fire Service). (iii) After the aforesaid advertisement, notification dated 07.04.2021 and 22.04.2021 were also issued, whereby certain amendments were made. (iv) Notification dated 03.11.2021 related to aforesaid recruitment process was also published. According to this notification a candidate appearing in the examination was required to answer total 160 objective type questions (40 questions from each subject), with maximum marks being 400 for all four subjects, namely General Hindi, General Knowledge (Basic Law and Constitution), Reasoning & Mental Ability Test. (v) Total 160 questions were to be solved within two hours i.e. 120 minutes equal to 7200 seconds. Accordingly, 45 seconds for each question. Thus, a candidate could solve one question in 45 seconds, as presumed by the department/recruitment agency. (vi) The department/prosecution came to know about the fact that various candidates have solved the questions too early in which a normal person cannot solve the questions and therefore, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter thirteen FIR(s) were lodged, as stated before this Court, including the FIR/Case Crime No. 0129 of 2021 at Police Station-Mahanagar District-Lucknow on 19.05.2022 under Sections 10 of Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act 1998 (in short 'Act of 1998') and Section 120B and 420 IPC making allegations the accused-applicants and others namely Ankit Kumar s/o Sanjeev Singh, Sachin Kumar s/o Mangeram, Umesh Kumar s/o Udaiveer Singh, Suneel Singh Yadav s/o Shiv Prakash, Kumari Kalpana d/o Rajendra Singh, Prashant Kumar s/o Budayal, Savita Singh d/o Ram Ujagiri Singh, Ridima Prajapati d/o Hareram Prasad, Babita d/o Hari Prasad, Afzal Khan s/o Inam Ali, Manoj Kumar s/o Vinod Kumar, Kumari Vineeta d/o Ramesh Chandra, Kavita Chaudhary d/o Santosh Kumar Chaudhary, Khushboo d/o Dev Nath, Praveen Kumar Mittal, Praveen Kumar Singh, Bhartendu Lavania, Anand Kumar Singh, and Mahesh Chandra. (vii) After lodging of FIR the Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.') carried out the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet before 3 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow (in short 'Magistrate') in connection with the FIR in issue i.e. FIR/Case Crime No. 0129 of 2022 referred above. (viii) The Magistrate considering the facts of the case and also material available on record summoned the accused-applicants namely Ankit Kumar and Sachin Kumar and others named above, to face the trial for the offence under Sections 420 IPC and 9 of the Act of 1998 and Section 66D I.T. Act vide its order dated 15.10.2022. (ix) The accused-applicants, on bail, appeared before the Magistrate and Magistrate framed charges against them on 07.11.2025 under Sections 420 IPC and 9 of the Act of 1998 and Section 66D I.T. Act.

4. It is relevant to indicate at this stage that the accused-applicants chooses not to prefer an application seeking discharge. Thus, the accused-applicants waived off the opportunity seeking discharge.

5. From the record it appears that Magistrate proceeded in the matter including framing of charges, at which stage according to the settled principle of law mini trial is not permissible and Magistrate has to see as to whether the evidence if goes unrebutted then the conviction is reasonably possible, considering the material placed by the I.O. alongwith charge-sheet, which needs to be taken note of by this Court also in the light of settled principle with regard to the prayer sought in the present application, quoted above.

6. The relevant material, to the view of this Court, starts from page 68 to page 93 of the paper book. In the instant case copy of CD-12 dated 02.06.2022 annexed at page no. 87 to 90, is relevant as the same relates to accused-applicants. (i) Relevant part of CD-12 dated 02.06.2022 related to accused- applicant namely Ankit Kumar s/o Sanjeev Singh, is extracted hereinunder:- " +9K} O +9I? )?? ?I O =;K ) 9O +?/? /? ? +9K} +9I? /O I ; 04 ?9 O )K /?} 1 BASIC LAW CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, 2 GENERAL HINDI, 3, MENTAL APTITUDE INTELLIGENCE TEST OF REASONING, 4 NUMERICAL AND MENTAL ABILITY TEST ? 9/?=O? ? /? /? -? ?-/I} +9K} /?9? +9I? O /M9?) -/ 30 ?/) /O 24 )K K 9; ? /? /?m --? ;O 30 ?/) /O +I ; 13 )K O m9, ;O 30 ?/) /O 89 )K K 9; ? /? /?, --? ?m-/ 15 ?/) /O /?} 06 )K K 9; ? /? /?m ?-/I} +9K} ?9? /I-/O?]9 ?/ I9O ?)) 9-I 40 )I K /?} 19.14 9O O m) /O 99I 99I 9; ? /? /? K ? 9o-= 9I, 9I -99 9I ?) ?/ O 9-I 40 )K K /?} 5.36 9O O m) /O 99I ? /? /?, K 9o-= )9K 9Im 9 O 9?- 9I 9?- ?9m/I I9O 37 )K K 22.52 9O O m) /O 99I 99I 9; ? /? /?, ? 99O }+ 9K-I 9I ? ?-/I} K O m 9 ?; /=}-?+ 9O )I?- ;?- ?o- 9K)O +9 / 9// /O m/?/ )K K 9; 9-O y +; 160 )K /O 9O I ; 155 )K K 99I m9 ?//? /? K ? 9I -I ?9 9o-= )9K 9Im K ? ?-/I}? I )?? ?I 9O /??+- 9Im" 4 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 (ii) According to the evidence collected CD-12 dated 02.06.2022 also relates to accused-applicant namely Sachin Kumar s/o Mangeram, which is extracted hereinunder:- " ?-/I} +9K} O +9I? )?? ?I O =;K ) 9O +?/? /? ? +9K} +9I? /O I ; 04 ?9 O )K }/? 1 BASIC LAW CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL KNOWLEDGE, 2 GENERAL HINDI, 3, MENTAL APTITUDE INTELLIGENCE TEST OF REASONING, 4 NUMERICAL AND MENTAL ABILITY TEST ? 9/?=O? ? /? /? -? ?-/I} +9K} /?9? +9I? O /M9?) -/ 30 ?/) /O 15 )K K 9; ? /? /?m --? ;O 15 ?/) /O I ; 14 )K O m9, ;O 15 ?/) /O 15 )K K 9; ? /? /?, ;O 15 ?/) /O 21 )K K 9; ? /?, ;O 15 ?/) /O 61 )K K 9; ? /?, ;O 15 ?/) /O 23 )K K 9; ? /? --? ?m-/ 15 ?/) /O /?} 02 )K K 9; ? /? /?m ?-/I} +9K} ?9? /I-/O?]9 ?/ I9O ?)) 9-I 37 )K K /?} 11.30 9O O m) /O 99I 99I 9; ? /? /? K ? 9o-= 9I, 9 O 9?- 9I 9?- ?9m/I I9O 38 )K K 06.36 9O O m) /O 99I 99I 9; ? /? /?, ? 99O }+ 9K-? 9I ? ?-/I} K O m 9 ?; /=}-?+ 9O )I?- ;?- ?o- 9K)O +9 / 9// /O m/?/ )K K 9; 9-O y I ; 160 )K /O 9O I ; 151 )K ? 99I m9 ?//? /? K ? 9I -I ?9 9o-= )9K 9Im K ? ?-/I- I )?? 9I 9O /??+- 9Im -?/ =;K ) +9K} ?-/I}+K/ m/?- O )?? ?I K ?I;- =;K )?-} 9 ; -K /?9 ? /? ? 99? 9I =;K ) 9O }=- /??+- 9I ? /I //? +9K} 9O 9o-?m/- ?-/I}+K/ m/?- ?9? O m =}-?+ 9 ?; ?/ ?}/K I /// 9O )I?- 9?/)K ? /K 9-O y }=??- 9// /O ?/ )K K 9; 9 m/?/ ? - 9 +9I? K mI+} ? /? /? 9Im K? ?)K)) +9?/ 9Im I/?) I /I ?==O K m/ ?/}99 ?9 9)? 9Im - I ?/}=?9I ? +?} 9O=? /O O??- 9Im ?==O)? ?;- 9Im"

7. The part of CD-12 dated 02.06.2022 related to accused-applicant Ankit Kumar, quoted above, indicates that : (i) In first thirty minutes accused-applicant Ankit Kumar solved 24 questions in first attempt and in next thirty minutes he solved 13 questions and in next thirty minutes he solved 89 questions, though reasonably in two minutes three questions can be solved, and in last 15 minutes he solved only 6 questions. (ii) Accused-applicant Ankit Kumar solved 40 questions of maths in 19.14 seconds and he solved 40 questions of reasoning in 5.36 seconds and he solved 37 questions of Hindi in 22.52 seconds.

8. The part of CD-12 dated 02.06.2022 related to accused-applicant Sachin Kumar, quoted above, indicates that: (i) In first thirty minutes accused-applicant Sachin Kumar solved 15 questions and in next 15 minutes he solved 14 questions and in next 15 minutes he solved 15 questions and in next 15 minutes he solved 21 questions and in next 15 minutes he solved 61 questions and in next 15 minutes he solved 23 questions and in last 15 minutes he solved 2 questions. (ii) Accused-applicant Sachin Kumar solved 37 questions of maths in 11.30 seconds and he solved 38 questions of Hindi in 06.36 seconds.

9. This Court is not referring to the cases of other accused though the material is available on record as they are not before this Court. 5 A482 No. 10126 of 2025

10. It is to be noted that at this stage that accused-applicants are on bail and Special Appeal Defective No. 1083 of 2025 challenging the judgment dated 29.08.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 18316 of 2022, based upon which the present application has been filed, is pending consideration before this Court.

11. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present application has been filed impeaching the order dated 15.10.2022.

12. Sri Niteesh Kumar, Sri Rajeev Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, stated as under:- (i) While dealing with the issue which was to the effect that as to whether the candidates against whom the allegation is that they have succeeded in written examination by unfair means could be permitted to participate in the Physical Standard Test (in short 'PST') and Physical Efficiency Test (in short 'PET'), this Court concluded that the persons who have been denied the opportunity to appear in the PET test are innocent and therefore directed the State to permit the candidates in the recruitment process. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment dated 29.08.2025 passed in the case of Ravi Kumar Yadav and 25 others Versus State of U.P. and Others in connected petitions are as under:- "25. Now coming to the first query raised by this Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which is relevant to decide the controversy, therefore, same is being quoted hereinbelow:- (i) He shall inform the date of framing of Rules in case of use of unfair means in the light of paragraph 13-of appendix-3 of Rules, 2015 and annex the copy of the Rule."

26. In reply of the query raised by the Court, respondent authorities have given specific reply in Paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "6. That regarding the Query No. I, it is most respectfully submitted thor prior to the recruitment in question the first amendment has been made in UP. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 on 03.12.2015. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of the first amendment in U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 dated 03.12.2015 is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 1 to this affidavit. By this amendment Appendix-3 of Rule 2015 has been ousted, therefore no rules have been framed in light of paragraph-13 of Appendix-3 of rule-2015. In these rules even after this by Government order no. 2/2020/1399/6-Po.-1-20- 53-2015 dated 13.07.2020 the Seventh amendment has been made. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of the Government order no. 2/2020/1399/6-Po.-1-20-53-2015 dated 13.07.2020 is being annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 2 to this affidavit. By this amendment in rule 15(Kha) provision has been given regarding examination, the Note (1) is as given: "(!) ?;?- +9I? O ?; ?=}-K- ?}/? -K)} ?9? =/??9- I ?/OI 9 9O +)I =O-9? +9 /??- I ?/OI" By para 8 (3) of the Advertisement dated 24.02.2021 the following provision has been made: 6 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 "3- ? 9I )??9, ? 9I /9m=+K+} 9K)? K ?+?)O, ?-/K ) / +9??/ =?/ ;?o-- 9K)O, /K??9o 9K)O, 9O ?/ I?=- +m)I O 9K)O, -m/K K ;- }-I- 9)O --? m/-}) -=? /) O 9o-m/ /O ?9+??9? 9)O ?/ K m/K /O ?;o- +?/O ?)O +9 m/-}) ?)9}- 9)O --? -K)} I +9I? = /)K 9O ?-=??9- (Debar) 9)O ? ?/ ?9 -K)} K 9K?m" Besides this, detailed instructions were given to the candidates in their Admit Card for online examination. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, copy of the instructions given in the Admit Card by the Recruitment Board is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to this affidavit. From bare perusal of this the candidate who falls under use of unfair means is transparently clear. The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Ordinance, 2024 regarding use of unfair means in recruitment conducted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, came into effect from July, 2024 which was not in force at the time of the examination in question. By Section 2 (K) of this Act "unfair means" has been defined for the first time and by Section 4(1) use or indulgence of unfair means or in connection with any public examinations or the conduct or public examinations has been prohibited and provision has been made to conduct enquiry for the violation of the prescribed act by Examination Authority and examinee have been given opportunity of being heard This ordinance is converted into the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Preventions of Unfair Meams) Act, 2024 by the U.P. Act No.8 of 2024. It is important to mention here that hy means of Section 13(1) read with Section 4 (1) of the act, it has been provided that where any examinee contravenes, or attempt or abets to contravene the provision of Section (1) of Section 4, his result of concerned public examination shall be withheld. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble court, copy of the Act is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit. The online examination was held from 12.11.2021 to 2.12.2021 prior to enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Public Examination (Preventions of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and earlier there was no provision to provide opportunity of hearing to the candidates prior to cancellation of their candidature on the ground of use of unfair means. By order dated 7.11.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013 (Tej Prakash Pathak & others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others) the following considerable points have been raised. "(4) Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discrimination/non arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. (5) Extant Rules have statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioners have not alleged any arbitrariness or discrimination against the Recruitment Board. The Board has conducted the whole process transparently and judicially.

27. In the affidavit dated 27.02.2025, they have not disclosed about the framing of rules with regard to use of unfair means based upon which candidature has been cancelled. Further, from perusal of both the affidavits, it is apparently clear that respondents have taken different views in both the affidavits. In the counter affidavit dated 15.9.2022, it is their case that they have relied upon Point No. 13 of the Appendix 3 of Rules, 2015 for framing of Rules, whereas in affidavit dated 27.2.2025, it is their case that Point No. 13 of Appendix 3 of Rules, 2015 was deleted vide amendment dated 03.12.2015 in Rules, 2015, therefore, it is an attempt to mislead the Court. Therefore, it is clear that no rules have ever been framed. Not only this, they have admitted that at the time of Physical Efficiency Test(PET), FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other candidates and they have not been permitted to appear in next phase of the examination and accordingly, they have been ousted from the selection process.

28. They are relying upon certain provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination(Prevention of Unfair Means) Ordinance, 2024, which was converted into The Uttar Pradesh Public Examination(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 by U.P. Act No. 7 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 8 of 2024. Further, once the examination has taken place in the year 2021 any provision of the Act, 2024 would not be applicable as it was not promulgated with retrospective effect. Relying upon an Act of 2024 for an examination held in 2021 shows non application of mind of respondents and also their mental bankruptcy.

29. Annexure CA-3 annexed along with the affidavit dated 27.02.2025 regarding instructions to candidates only says that there will be no negative marks for wrong answers and further, other conditions mentioned in the instruction are having no relevance with the present controversy as none of the instructions is saying to solve the questions in a particular time frame.

30. In light of facts stated in both the affidavits, it is established that for cancellation of examination, no rules have ever been framed and in arbitrary manner, candidature of the candidates are rejected and they are also subjected to criminal proceedings.

31. The second query raised by the Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, reads as follows:- "(ii) He shall also inform the procedure so adopted for cancellation of candidature or to oust from further selection process."

32. In reply of the aforesaid query raised by the Court, respondent authorities have given specific reply in Paragraph 7 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:- ii, the Query No. is most respectfully submitted the writ petition became out of that 40 "That regarding candidates/petitioners of the selection process automatically due to not participating in the physical efficiency test hence no process are initiated to cancel their candidature. Regarding two petitioners, namely, Jitesh Kumar and Rajat Chauhan the Candidate Response Log was examined by the service provider agency and found proof regarding use of unfair means. These candidates appeared in Document Verification and physical standard examination but they could not give satisfactory answer for solving very few questions unusually and unbelievably in very short time, which indicates that their act falls within criminal activity and for lawful investigation of which first information report was lodged and Recruitment Board took the decision to cancel their candidature. Against the petitioners, after investigation, charge-sheets have been been submitted. By order dated 08.07.2024 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 333 of 2024 (Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India) before Hon'ble Apex Court regarding use of unfair means in the examination and for sorting such candidates by the analysis the following point has been discussed: "18 The third aspect on which it is necessary to have a further disclosure by the Union Government as well hy NTA is whether it would be feasible. using data analytics either within the cyber forensic unit or any other expert agencies within the government or which may be employed by the government to identify suspect or suspicious cases. If this is possible, the authority shall identify the modalities which can be followed so as to segregate the students suspected of using unfair means from the other students" Further, vide order dated 02.08.2024 in the same writ petition the Hon'ble Apex Court again passed the following remars: "Third, the Union of India and NTA were directed to inform the Cou't as to whether it was feasible to use data analytics to identify suspicious cases. If such an approach was found to be feasible, the parameters used for flagging such cases (such as abnormal score patterns) were required to be placed on record. (Page 11 Para 14) ...Data analysis is a useful tool in the endeavour to detect malpractice (Page-40, Para-72) U. Consider the viability of comprehensive CCTV surveillance systems at all examination centers, including real-time monitoring and recording of all activities. The aim is to deter and detect any malpractice or unauthorized activities and to provide evidence in case of incidents, (Page-56, Para 106)" Thus, it is clear that to sort out candidates, using unfair means, the Examination experts of the service provider agency may use Data Analysis and Abnormal Score Pattern besides other means which has been permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Prior to witholding 8 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 result of suspected candidates of NEET no show cause notice was issued by NTA to the candidates."

33. From perusal of the same, it is apparent that the stand of respondents is that 40 petitioners/candidates of the present writ petition became out of the selection process automatically due to not participating in Physical Efficiency Test, hernice no process has been initiated to cancel their candidature. Being not satisfied with the preliminary enquiry, FIR has been lodged and Board, Lucknow took decision to cancel their candidature. It is also stated that every action has been taken in light of CRL of the service provider agency using data analysis and abnormal score pattern.

34. It is very surprising that in Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 15.9.2022, they have admitted that FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other candidates and they have not been permitted to appear in the next phase of the examination. Now, in affidavit dated 27.02.2025, different view has been taken which clearly shows malafide on the part of respondent authorities and in a arbitrary manner without adopting any procedure, respondents have cancelled the candidature of the candidates, which is admitted in the. Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022. After query of this Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, to save their skin, respondent authorities have taken different view shifting the liability to candidates that they have themselves left the examination, therefore, such conduct is highly depreciated.

35. In fact, Court is of the firm view that for cancellation of candidature, no procedure has ever been adopted and based only on CRL, action has been taken, which cannot be a conclusive proof of use of unfair means coupled with the undisputed fact that against the petitioners, no complaint has ever been made by: the examination centre, invigilators or any other agency, which were involved in the examination procedure, therefore, reply of query no. 2 so given by the respondent authorities is an attempt to mislead the Court.

36. Now coming to the third query raised by this Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which reads as follows:- "He shall also inform the Court about the opportunity of hearing or rebuttal so given to petitioner before cancellation of their candidature or ousting them from selection process."

37. The respondent authorities have given specific reply of same in Paragraph 8 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is quoted hereinbelow:- "8. That regarding the Query No. iii, it is most respectfully submitted that the petitioners were given opportunity of being heard prior to lodging FIRs and when they could not provide a satisfactory answer to their unusual behaviour, only then FIRs were lodged. The candidate who did not participate in any one of the stage of the selection process, they automatically got out of the selection process."

38. From perusal of the same, it is very astonishing that petitioners were given opportunity of being heard prior to lodging of FIRs and they could not provide a satisfactory answer to their unusual behaviour, only then FIRs have been lodged. It is also stated that candidate did not participate in any one of the stage of the selection process, they automatically got out of the selection process.

39. As per settled principles of law, for lodging of FIR either in Cr.P.C. or B.N.S.S., there is no provision to provide opportunity of hearing, but so far as cancellation of candidature is concerned, law is also settled that candidature cannot be cancelled before giving opportunity of rebuttal. In the present case, it is admitted that no opportunity of rebuttal was given to the petitioners before the cancellation of their candidature or ousting them from selection process. Not only this, Chairman of Board, Lucknow again tried to mislead the Court by saying that candidates themselves automatically got out from the selection process, whereas in the Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022, there is clear admission that FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other candidates and they have not been permitted to appear in the next phase of the examination.

40. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that all action have been taken in gross violation of principles of natural justice and candidature of the candidates have been cancelled without opportunity of rebuttal or hearing in a most arbitrary manner.

41. Now coming to the fourth query raised by the Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which is read as follows:- 9 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 "(iv) As per counter affidavit, petitioners' candidates are ousted from selection process based upon unusual and unbelievable behaviour. He shall also inform as to why information about the unusual and unbelievable behaviour was given to candidates which may lead to cancellation of their candidature.

42. The reply of the same was given in Paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is being quoted hereinbelow:- "9. That regarding the Query No. iv, it is most respectfully submitted that for ensuring fairness and transparency and also to ensure trusts in the selection process in all the candidates it was necessary that against these suspect candidates, appropriate action should have been taken with immediate effect. As there was prima facie data analytic evidence against the petitioners, hence by intimating them orally and after not getting any satisfactory answer, FIRs have been lodged in which after investigation the charge sheets have been submitted. For being absent from the selection process the candidates become out automatically from the same."

43. From perusal of the same, this Court is of the firm view that no information has ever been given to the petitioner about any unusual or unbelievable behaviour in examination, which may have lead to cancellation of their candidature. In fact, entire exercise has taken place based upon the prima facie data analytic evidence as stated in Paragraph 9 of the affidavit 27.2.2025. Again an attempt has been made to mislead the Court taking contrary view in paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 27.02.2025 from counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022. In Paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 27.02.2025 it is reiterated that candidates automatically quit the examination, whereas, in counter affidavit dated 15.09.2022 it is stated that they have not been permitted to appear in the next phase of the examination and ousted from the selection process. The Paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 27.02.2025 is absolutely silent about any information given to the candidates with regard to unusual and unbelievable behaviour, which confirms that no such information has ever been given petitioners and in an arbitrary manner their candidature has been cancelled.

44. Now coming to the fifth query raised by this Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which is read as follows:-"Second ground for cancellation of candidature is that candidates have solved many questions in a very short time. He shall inform as to whether any such information as given to petitioner to solve the papers in a particular manner or particular time limit and violation of that may be resulted in cancellation of candidature."

45. The reply of the same was given in Paragraph 10 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is being quoted hereinbelow:- in connection "10. That regarding the Query No. V, it is most respectfully submitted that the relevant facts have already been given/discussed in the preceding paragraph of this reply. However, it is further submitted that the candidates were required to solve 160 questions in 120 minutes. As per predetermined standard these questions were of simple, medium and difficult in nature. All the candidates in solving these questions utilized the time which was under reasonable to every limit. During Data Analysis examinee/candidates qualified for DV/PST clear Dat Points were collected from the Candidates Response Log which were sufficient to examine their Response Pattern. In this light, it is made clear that it was not required to intimate the candidates regarding allocation of time to solve the same questions or regarding the method of solving the question, for violation of which their candidature could be rejected and it was neither required nor possible in the selection process. It is important to mention here that after the online written examination for the next stage of document verification and physical standard test, total 36,170/-candidates were called. For all these total 36,170 candidates the board instructed the service provider agency NSELT to examine their behaviour in Candidate Response Loge and their Candidate Response Patten in giving the reply of questions through Expert Committee. After this examination NSEIT made remarks regarding total 303 candidates as given under:- Behaviour is quite unusual and unbelievable, there is suspicion that the candidate hat sought tome external help vin Hiegal means.

46. From perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that no such instruction has ever been given to petitioners. In fact, Paragraph 10 of the affidavit is saying that all candidates are required to solve the question under reasonable time and during data analysis in 10 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 connection to every examinee/candidates qualified for DV/PST, clear data points were collected from the CRL, which are sufficient to examine their response pattern. It is also mentioned that behaviour is quite unusual and unbelievable and there is suspicion that candidates has sought some external help through illegal means.

47. It is very surprising that action is totally based upon suspicion, neither any complaint has been received nor any unfair material has been recovered to establish that they have got some external help through illegal means. Law is very well settled that only based upon surmises and conjunctures, no such action can be taken jeopardising the future of the candidates. There is no dispute on the point that candidates may solve all questions in 15 minutes and once there is no negative marking, in case most of the answers are found correct, solving of question in a short time cannot said to be the use of unfair means without supported by any material. Therefore, this reply of the respondents also cannot be accepted for rejection of candidature of petitioners.

48. Now coming to the last query i.e. sixth query raised by the Court in its order dated 18.2.2025, which is read as follows:-"He shall also inform as to whether respondents have received any information or complaint with regard to use of unfair means or any misconduct by the candidates during the exam period"

49. The reply of the same was given in Paragraph 11 of the affidavit dated 27.2.2025, which is being quoted hereinbelow:- "11. That regarding the Query No. vi, it is most respectfully submitted that regarding 42 candidates in present writ petition the following remark has been received by the service provider agency:- "Behaviour is quite unusual and unbelievable, there is suspicion that the candidate has sought some external help via illegal means."

50. From perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that no information or complaint has been received against the petitioners. Once there is no complaint and no information about the use of unfair means and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the candidates, only suspicion cannot be a ground to cancel the candidature ruining their career.

51. In light of facts discussed hereiabove, this Court is of the firm view that for use of unfair means, no rules have ever heen framed, no procedure regarding cancellation of candidature has ever been informed to candidates and further, they have also not been informed that they have to solve the question paper in a particular time bound manner. In fact, no compliant or any adverse information has been received against any of the petitioners and nothing has been recovered from their possession. Prior to cancellation of the candidature, no opportunity of hearing or rebuttal was given to petitioners and the decision has been taken in gross violation of natural justice based upon surmises and conjunctures.

52. In last, the conduct of respondent-authorities are most irresponsible or unbecoming of government servant rather they are behaving like a group of unlawful persons. In Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3 dated 15.9.2022, stand of the State-respondents is clear that FIR has been lodged against the petitioners and other candidates and they have not been permitted to appear in next phase of the examination and accordingly ousted from the selection process due to use of unfair means, whereas in the affidavit of Chairman of Board, Lucknow dated 27.2.2025 entirely different view has been taken that petitioners themselves left the examination. Such type of conduct of State-respondents is highly depreciated. It is expected that State Government shall take action in accordance with law.

53. In light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed. Any order rejecting the candidature of petitioners/candidates on the grounds referred hereinabove is hereby set aside. Writ of Mandamus is issued directing the respondent-authorities to complete the selection process by conducting Physical Efficiency Test(PET) or any other remaining part of the examination maximum within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

54. It is further directed that this judgment shall be applicable to all the similarly situated candidates, who had not been permitted to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test(PET) 11 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 based on similar allegation, which is subject matter of these writ petitions, whether they are petitioners in this writ petition/connected writ petitions or not.

55. It is also clarified that, în case candidature of any of the petitioners in this writ petition/connected writ petitions has been cancelled or they are not permitted to appear in the Physical Efficiency Test(PET) and other part of the examination due to some other reasons, not the subject matter of this writ petition, they shall not be given benefit of this judgment and respondents shall pass separate orders along with reasons witihin the same time in those matters.

56. Respondent-authorities are also directed to declare the result of the petitioners within a month from the date of completion of examination and issue appointment letters, if they are selected." (ii) Reference has also been made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Putai v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1827. The relevant paragraphs of the same are as under:- "78. We are conscious that the case involves a gruesome act of rape and brutal murder of a tender girl child aged 12 years. However, it is a settled tenet of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The incriminating circumstances must be such which point exclusively to the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence or the guilt of anyone else.

79. Having considered and analyzed the evidence available on record minutely, we feel that the prosecution has fallen woefully short of proving the guilt of the accused-appellants by clinching evidence which can be termed as proving the case beyond all manner of doubt." (iii) Reference has also been made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex in the case of Shera v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 3276. The relevant paragraphs of the same are as under:- "66. We are conscious of the fact that in the present case, an old man has been done to death but the fact remains that it is the duty of prosecution to prove its case against the accused- appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, howsoever grave cannot take place of a proof. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 in para-14 has held as under:— “14. Taking the first question for consideration, we are of the view that in case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. It has been recognised as a human right by this Court. In Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., [(2004) 10 SCC 699 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1893 ], this Court has recognised presumption of innocence as a human right and has gone on to say that : (SCC pp. 708 & 709, paras 30-31 & 33) “30. It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well settled that there is a long distance between “may be’ and “must be’." (iv) Reference has also been made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex in the case of State of H.P. v. Kamal Deep, 2016 SCC OnLine HP 1441. The relevant paragraphs of the same are as under:- "11. The prosecution has alleged of the accused/respondent herein indulging in a malpractice of using unfair means in the apposite examination comprised in his carrying to the examination 12 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 hall prohibited material comprised in Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-16 for facilitating him to render/mete appropriate answers to the questions occurring in the question-paper purveyed to him at the examination center. However, potent proof comprised of Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-16 constituting the apposite material for empowering the accused/respondent to mete answer to the questions occurring in the question paper stands unadduced by the prosecution. For non adduction of the aforesaid material by the prosecution, it cannot be concluded of the material comprised in EX.P-2 to Ex.P-16 as stood purportedly carried by the accused/respondent herein to the examination center held empowerment to him to answer the relevant questions nor it can be said that while his possessing the material comprised Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-16, his dishonestly using them for securing correct answers to the questions occurring in the question paper." (v) Reference has also been made to the judgment passed by the this Court in the case of Mata Din Tripathi V State of U.P. and Another in Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 708 of 2024. The relevant paragraphs of the same are as under:- "9. The Supreme Court in the case Basheera Begam Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 has held that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If, upon analysis of evidence, two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and other of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have, upon analysis of the evidence on record, found the accused to be "not guilty". When circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime.

10. The Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808 has observed as under: "25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought is to established by circumstantial evidence."

11. The Supreme Court again examined in State of Odisha v.Banabihari Mohapatra & Ors, (2021) 15 SCC 268 the effect of the probability of two views in cases of appeal against acquittal and held that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused, and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.

12. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 has reiterated the position that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Based upon the aforesaid judgment(s), it is stated that on mere suspicion a person cannot be prosecuted and/or convicted. This is the ground for causing interference in the matter. Sri Anuj Kudeshia, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Badrul Hasan learned AGA and Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla learned AGA, appearing for the State, opposed the present application. It is stated that the questions in a manner in which the accused-applicants have solved, is improbable/impossible, which itself indicates that the accused-applicants have committed crime. It 13 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 is also submitted that the judgment relied by learned Counsel for the applicants would be of no help to the accused-applicants as in this case On-line examination was held. It is further submitted that I.O. has collected the evidence, according to which prima-facie the case against the accused-applicants is made out.

15. Considered the aforesaid and perused the records and also considered the principles settled with regard to causing interference in the criminal proceedings at initial stage in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS, akin to Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now repealed).

18. The High Court has inherent powers in criminal matters not by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now repealed) akin to Section 528 BNSS but because the powers inherent in High Court, as a superior Court of record by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India and as it is a protector of fundamental rights of citizens. Section 482 Cr.P.C.(now repealed) akin to Section 528 BNSS merely makes explicit what is otherwise inherent in the High Court. Nevertheless, when we see the provision contained in Section 482 Cr.P.C.(now repealed) akin to Section 528 BNSS it says, "Nothing in this Sanhita (expression 'Code' was used in Section 482 Cr.P.C.) shall be deemed to limit or effect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders, as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita (expression 'Code' was used in Section 482 Cr.P.C.), or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". Thus, the provision merely clarifies that the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code shall not in any way limit or effect the inherent powers of the High Court. Inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised to- (i) make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or Sanhita, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The scope of inherent powers, the circumstances and manner in which they are to be exercised is no longer res-integera as it has been dealt with in a catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as also this Court. In a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ahmed Ali Quraishi Versus State of U.P. And Others reported in AIR 2020 SCC 788 the law in this regard has been discussed and explained at length. Relevant paragraph nos. 10 to 16 of this report are as under:- "10. Before we enter into facts of the present case and submissions made by the 14 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to look into the scope and ambit of inherent jurisdiction which is exercised by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. This Court had the occasion to consider the scope and jurisdiction of Section 482 CrPC. This Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], had elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 CrPC/Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashing the criminal proceedings. In para 102, this Court enumerated seven categories of cases where power can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 CrPC by the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Para 102 is as follows:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

11. This Court in Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P. [Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P., (2017) 13 SCC 369 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 633] , had considered the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. In the above case also, the Additional Civil Judicial Magistrate had summoned the accused for offences under Sections 452, 376 and 323 IPC and the criminal revision against the said order was dismissed by the District Judge.

12. This Court time and again has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. A three-Judge 15 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy[State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] , held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. In para 7 of the judgment, the following has been stated: (SCC p. 703). "7. ... In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

13. A three-Judge Bench in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 539] , had the occasion to consider the ambit of Section 482 CrPC. By analysing the scope of Section 482 CrPC, this Court laid down that authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It further held that court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. The following was laid down in para 6: (SCC p. 94) "6. ... All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto."

19. Section 482 of CrPC (Now repealed) and Section 528 of BNSS, enforced w.e.f. 01.07.2024, are pari mareria. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under the said provisions should not meticulously examine the evidence filed along with charge-sheet by the 16 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 Investigating Officer, as the same is an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the concerned court during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties. The power exercised by this Court is discretionary in nature. This Court in exercise of its inherent powers cannot go into the disputed question of facts. In exercise of power under the said provisions, this court is required to consider the case set up by the prosecution/ complainant for coming to the conclusion as to whether the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed at the initial stage. The accused person during trial is required to place and prove/ establish its defence in accordance with the law of evidence. The defence of the accused is required to be taken note of in the trial by the trial Court. At this stage, a mini trial is not permissible. At the stage of framing of charge as also while exercising power under the said provision, the material/ evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer and in the case of complaint the documents and evidence produced by the complainant before the court concerned can only be considered. [See: Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar And Others (2019) 6 SCC 107); R. P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; State of Haryana And Others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal And Others 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 355; State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P. P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222; Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122; M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682; Rajeev Kourav Vs. Baisahab & Others (2020) 3 SCC 317; State of U.P. Vs. Akhil Sharda & Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC; Salib alias Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of U.P. and Others]. The defence indisputable/ undeniable/unquestionable/ irrefragable/ beyond suspicion may be considered in exceptional circumstances in the peculiar facts of a given case by this Court while exercising its power/ jurisdiction under the said provisions. [See: Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 351; G. N. Mishra And Another Vs. Smt. Divya Awasthi And Another, MANU/UP/1879/2012]. irrefutable/

20. Upon due consideration of aforesaid, this Court finds that no interference is required in the matter for the reason that this Court is, prima-facie, of the view that at this stage involvement of accused- applicants in the alleged crime cannot be ruled out. It is for the following facts/reasons:- 17 A482 No. 10126 of 2025 (I) In the written examination in issue, total 160 questions were to be solved within two hours i.e. 120 minutes equal to 7200 seconds. Accordingly, 45 seconds for each question. (II) Thus, a candidate could solve one question in 45 seconds, as presumed by the department/recruitment agency. (III) Accused-applicant Ankit Kumar solved 40 questions of maths in 19.14 seconds and he solved 40 questions of reasoning in 5.36 seconds and he solved 37 questions of Hindi in 22.52 seconds. (IV) Accused-applicant Sachin Kumar solved 37 questions of maths in 11.30 seconds and he solved 38 questions of Hindi in 06.36 seconds. (V) Charge-sheet against the accused-applicants namely Ankit Kumar and Sachin Kumar is based upon the evidence i.e. 'Data Sheet(s)' of the accused-applicants.

21. For the aforesaid, the instant application is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. December 9, 2025 Jyoti/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench