Can a selection stand while a criminal investigation into examination malpractice is still in progress?

Yes, where the appointments are expressly made subject to the final outcome of that investigation. The proceedings of the competent authority stipulated that appointments made pursuant to the provisional selection list were subject to the outcome of the criminal investigation, and with the selection concluded and the candidates appointed, no further interference by the Court was required.

Selection process — Malpractice at an examination centre — Tainted candidates identified — Selection not cancelled in entirety — Appointments subject to investigation — Selection process — Whole selection tainted — Selection set aside in entirety — Held: Where the entire selection is found to be tainted the Court has no option but to set it aside in its entirety; but where the tainted candidates in a competitive examination can be identified, they alone are liable to be debarred. (¶7) Selection process — Irregularity at one centre — Untainted candidates not to be made victims — Held further: Irregularities by a few candidates at one centre do not make victims of every other candidate against whom nothing is established, and where appointments are expressly subject to the outcome of the criminal investigation no further interference is required. (¶7, ¶9) Selection process — Directions — Investigation to conclude and action to follow — Held further: The investigating agency is to conclude the investigation expeditiously and the authorities to act against any candidate found to have indulged in malpractice, all appointments remaining subject to the final outcome. Appeal disposed of. (¶11, ¶12)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of S.Theerthagiri v. C.Muthukumaran — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India