IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13004 of 2006 NEERAJ KUMAR Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 5/ 26/9/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in C.R.P.F. Having qualified through the physical test he was asked to appear at the typing test. Learned counsel, with reference to the call letter dated 28.6.2005 submits that only those who had qualified in the typing test were to be called for interview. The petitioner was called for the interview which itself is evidence of the fact that he qualified in the typing test. Notwithstanding the same, he has been sent a communication dated 30th of June, 2006 that he had failed to passed the typing test and therefore he has not been selected. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. From paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit and the additional submissions from the documents, not on the record, what emerges is that the petitioner passed the examination for steno typist. A suspicion arose with regard to the use of unfair means at the examination by - 2 - some candidates. The entire examination has not been cancelled. The petitioner was one of the candidates whose typing scripts were selectively rejected on suspicion of use of unfair means. He has now been declared as one of the unsuccessful candidates. The law stands settled that in a case of mass cancellation of examination for large scale use of unfair means, the question of an individual show cause notice simply does not arise. But, where the candidature of a candidate is selectively cancelled on suspicion of the use of unfair means the law contemplates giving him a show cause notice before he is deprived of the benefit of such examination, which has admittedly not been done in the present case. Whether there has been the use of unfair means by the petitioner is a matter to be decided after grant of due opportunity to the person affected. For that reason the impugned order dated 30.6.2006 is set aside. The respondents are directed to grant opportunity to the petitioner by also making available to him the materials on which he was suspected to have used unfair means and a take fresh decision with regard to his candidature within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. - 3 - The writ application stands allowed in the manner indicated above. KC ( Navin Sinha, J )