HC puts Punjab pharmacist recruitment on hold over alleged hi-tech cheating racket

According to the plea, around 7,000 candidates appeared at 25 examination centres in Faridkot, Kotkapura and Ferozepur. The petition alleges that within minutes of the examination commencing, the question paper was scanned using a concealed pen camera and transmitted via WhatsApp to an accomplice in Haryana. The answers were then allegedly relayed from a control room in Faridkot to candidates inside examination halls through wireless micro-devices.

The petition relies on a press release issued by the Inspector General of Police, Faridkot Range, stating that seven operators and 28 candidates were detained on the day of the examination and 27 wireless cheating devices were recovered. It further refers to an FIR registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Faridkot, on July 20 after another candidate was allegedly caught using a Bluetooth receiver and miniature earpiece.

The petition alleges that the racket charged candidates between Rs 3.5 lakh and Rs 13 lakh, collected post-dated cheques as security and distributed the electronic devices at a hotel on the Faridkot-Kotkapura road on the morning of the examination.

Arguing that the integrity of the entire examination stood compromised once the question paper was transmitted outside the examination hall, the petitioners submitted that it was impossible to distinguish between beneficiaries of the racket and genuine candidates. They cited Supreme Court judgments, including Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (2024) and State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (2025), to contend that the examination should be cancelled and conducted afresh with enhanced security measures.

The petition also alleges serious lapses in examination security, claiming that 27 electronic devices passed through frisking and biometric checks undetected despite explicit prohibitions on carrying electronic gadgets into examination centres.

The petitioners further submitted that a representation seeking cancellation of the examination, submitted on July 20 and followed by an email the next day, had elicited no response even as the university proceeded with the evaluation process.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Sarthak Gupta argued that no results had yet been declared, making it an appropriate stage to rectify the alleged irregularities without affecting third-party rights.

Punjab Additional Advocate General T.P.S. Walia, appearing for the State, sought time to file a written statement. The High Court issued notice to the respondents and fixed August 10 for the next hearing. It also directed that replies be filed before the next date with advance copies supplied to the petitioners.