NEW DELHI, October 3, 2026: The Delhi High Court has questioned the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) over its decision to cancel a candidate’s candidature and impose a three-year ban from appearing in SSC examinations, observing that such a serious penalty cannot ordinarily be imposed without first giving the candidate an opportunity to respond. The court made the observations while hearing an SSC challenge against a Central Administrative Tribunal order.
The case concerns a candidate, Durgesh Kumar, who had appeared for the SSC Multi-Tasking Staff Examination in 2016. According to the court record, the SSC subsequently cancelled his candidature and barred him from taking any examination conducted by the commission for three years. The action was based on an allegation that he had assisted a neighbouring candidate during the examination.
Court Questions Lack of Show-Cause Notice
A central issue before the High Court was whether the SSC could impose cancellation and debarment without first issuing a show-cause notice to the candidate.
The court noted that the Central Administrative Tribunal had already set aside the SSC’s action, holding that the candidate should have been given an opportunity to explain the allegation before such punitive measures were taken. The Tribunal had also noted that although the SSC referred to examination videography in its submissions, the relevant recording had not been produced before it.
Justice C. Hari Shankar questioned how cancellation of candidature and a three-year examination ban could be imposed without first notifying the affected candidate. The judgment emphasised the importance of natural justice, particularly when an administrative decision can have significant consequences for a person’s participation in future recruitment examinations.
Court Highlights Inconsistent Procedures
The judgment also raised concerns about the way the SSC appears to have handled similar cases. According to the court, there were other matters in which the commission had issued show-cause notices to candidates facing allegations of using unfair means.
The court observed that the SSC appeared to follow different procedures in different cases—providing candidates an opportunity to respond in some matters while apparently dispensing with that step in others. The judgment questioned why the basic procedural safeguard was not followed consistently in Kumar’s case.
The court described the consequences of a three-year ban at a critical stage of a candidate’s career as extremely serious. Hindustan Times reported that the court said such a ban was “almost akin to civil death,” underscoring the significance of the restriction on the candidate’s future examination opportunities.
Broader Examination-System Context
The ruling comes amid wider judicial scrutiny of disciplinary action in competitive examinations. Just days earlier, on September 24, 2026, the Delhi High Court had dealt with another SSC matter involving a candidate who was barred from participating in SSC selections for seven years over alleged use of unfair means. In that case, the court upheld the Tribunal’s decision setting aside the cancellation and seven-year debarment, finding the action unsustainable on the facts and law of that case.
The two cases are separate and concern different candidates and penalties, but both involve judicial examination of how the SSC applies disciplinary measures following allegations of examination misconduct.
For candidates preparing for government recruitment examinations, the latest proceedings highlight the legal importance of procedural safeguards when examination authorities impose punitive restrictions. The Delhi High Court’s September 28 order in Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Durgesh Kumar specifically concerns the three-year debarment and the requirement to follow principles of natural justice before taking such action.
