Procedural fairness: cancellations based solely on investigative inputs are invalid, but authorities may reopen by independent inquiry.

Administrative cancellations of examination results made solely on investigative-agency inputs without conducting an independent inquiry or affording affected candidates an opportunity to be heard are procedurally invalid; such cancellations are quashed, but the examining authority is permitted to institute a fresh, lawful independent inquiry and proceed thereafter. Consequential departmental removal orders founded exclusively on those quashed cancellations are set aside with liberty to the department to re-examine and re-decide following due process; where departmental removals arose independently or appeals remain pending, reinstatement is not automatic and depends on successful departmental challenge, subject to subsequent lawful action after any fresh inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cancellation of examination results by VYAPAM based solely on information from the Special Task Force, without conducting an independent inquiry or giving the affected candidates an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable; (ii) Whether consequential departmental orders of removal from service passed relying on VYAPAM's cancellation of results ought to be set aside and the effect of such setting aside on reinstatement and future departmental proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether cancellation of examination results by VYAPAM, effected solely on the basis of information received from the investigating agency without an independent inquiry or opportunity to the candidates, is valid.

Analysis: The decision under challenge was taken only on receipt of information from the Special Task Force and no independent inquiry was conducted nor opportunity of hearing given to the concerned candidates. Prior divisional authority dealing with identical issues reached a conclusion that necessitates quashing of such cancellations where no inquiry or opportunity was provided, while permitting the examining authority to commence its own inquiry based on investigative inputs. The authority empowered to determine examination results may reopen or re-examine the matter but must do so by an independent enquiry conducted on merits and in accordance with law, leaving ancillary questions open for determination in that process.

Conclusion: Cancellation of examination results by VYAPAM on the stated basis is quashed and set aside; VYAPAM is granted liberty to institute an independent inquiry and proceed thereafter in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether departmental orders of removal from service passed consequentially on the basis of VYAPAM's cancelled results should be set aside and what is the effect on reinstatement and future departmental action.

Analysis: Where departmental removal orders rested upon the impugned VYAPAM decisions that have been quashed, those consequential departmental orders were set aside with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law and due process. For cases where departmental removal preceded VYAPAM action or where departmental appeals are pending, reinstatement is not automatic; reinstatement requires successful challenge of the departmental order and even then does not preclude subsequent departmental action if VYAPAM, after due inquiry, cancels results. Petitioners removed on grounds independent of VYAPAM findings retain the remedy of statutory departmental appeal and related questions are to be decided on their own merits.

Conclusion: Consequential departmental orders of removal that were founded on the quashed VYAPAM decisions are set aside with liberty to the department to proceed lawfully; where departmental removal operates independently or appeals are pending, reinstatement is contingent upon successful departmental appeal and does not bar future departmental action following VYAPAM's due inquiry.

Final Conclusion: The petitions are partly allowed by quashing and setting aside VYAPAM's cancellations for lack of independent inquiry and opportunity, and by setting aside consequential departmental removal orders dependent on those cancellations, while granting both VYAPAM and the department liberty to re-examine and proceed in accordance with law through independent inquiry or departmental processes as applicable.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative action canceling examination results based solely on investigative agency inputs without conducting an independent inquiry and without affording the affected persons an opportunity to be heard is procedurally unsustainable; the examining authority may, however, institute its own lawful inquiry on the basis of investigative information and act thereafter.

---