The Supreme Court of India underscored the necessity of maintaining absolute integrity in government job selection processes. The court set aside the bail granted to two accused, Indraj Singh and Salman Khan, in a case involving the use of a "dummy candidate" in a competitive examination for the post of Assistant Engineer Civil. The court's decision highlights the broader societal impact of such malpractices and the importance of preserving public trust in administrative systems.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident where Salman Khan allegedly appeared as a "dummy candidate" for Indraj Singh in the Assistant Engineer Civil (Autonomous Governance Department) Competitive Examination-2022. An FIR was registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 3 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2022. During the investigation, a cheque for Rs. 10 lakhs was recovered from Salman Khan, allegedly given by Indraj Singh.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Declares Public Employment Advertisements Invalid Without Mention of Available Posts
The trial court had initially denied bail to both accused, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the potential harm to the integrity of the examination process. However, the High Court of Rajasthan later granted bail, considering factors such as the lack of criminal antecedents and the completion of the investigation.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the critical importance of maintaining scrupulousness in government job selection processes. The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, observed:
"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. Absolute scrupulousness in the process being followed instills and further rejuvenates the faith of the public in the fact that those who are truly deserving of the positions, are the ones who have deservedly been installed to such positions."
The court further noted that the actions of the accused had potentially compromised the sanctity of the examination, affecting thousands of genuine candidates who had put in earnest efforts to secure a government job. The court stated:
"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."
Read Also:- Employer Holds Sole Authority to Decide Qualification Equivalence for Jobs, Not Courts: Allahabad High Court
Bail Cancellation and Societal Impact
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's decision to grant bail, stating that the gravity of the offence and its impact on society must be considered. The court referred to several precedents, including Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., Ajwar v. Waseem, and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, which discuss the parameters for granting bail in serious offences.
The court acknowledged the presumption of innocence until proven guilty but emphasized that the overall impact of the alleged acts on society warranted the cancellation of bail. The court stated:
"We are conscious of the fact that bail once granted is not to be set aside ordinarily, and we wholeheartedly endorse 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."
Case : State of Rajasthan vs Indraj Singh
