REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9058              OF 2011 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 6629 of 2010]

Chief General Manager,  Calcutta Telephones District,  Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.          ...Appellants

VERSUS

Surendra Nath Pandey & Ors.                  …Respondents  

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2.  This appeal is directed against the final judgment and  

order of the High Court of Judicature at Kolkata dated  

1st September, 2009, in F.M.A. No. 807 of 2009. The  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  

order dismissed the appeal of the appellants thereby  

affirming the order passed by the Learned Single Judge  

in  W.P.  No.  18313 of  2004,  directing  the  appellants  

1

herein,  to  inform  the  respondents  about  the  marks  

obtained by them in the examination in question and  

grant promotion to the  respondents pursuant  to the  

result of the departmental examination.

3. The respondents are employees of the appellants, i.e.,  

Department  of  Telecommunication  within  the  

Department of Post & Telegraph, Government of India,  

now  renamed  Bharat  Sanchar  Nigam  Limited.  They  

appeared  in  an  examination  for  being  promoted  to  

Junior  Accounts  Officers.  Junior  Accounts  Officers  

Service  Postal  Wing  (Group  C)  Recruitment  Rules,  

1977 regulate recruitment and conditions of service for  

this  post.  The  rules  provided  for  a  two  stage  

departmental  examination  for  appointment  to  this  

post.

4. The  appellants  conducted  the  aforementioned  

departmental  examination  on  20th  February,  1999,  

21st February,  1999  &  22nd February,  1999  for  

appointing Junior Accounts Officers in the Department  

2

of  Telecommunication  under  the  Ministry  of  

Communication. The respondents appeared in the said  

examination;  however,  when the  result  consisting  of  

lists  featuring  names  of  both  successful  and  

unsuccessful  candidates  was  displayed,  their  names  

did not appear in either of the lists.

5. The  respondents  in  order  to  know  their  result  

deposited  Rs.  25/-  each  for  being  apprised  of  the  

marks secured by  them along with a  representation  

before  the  appropriate  authority.  The  respondent’s  

request was in accordance with Rule 13 of the (Rules  

Relating to Departmental Examination, Part I General)  

of  Post  &  Telegraph  Manual,  Volume  IV.   Rule  13  

states:

“Communication  of Marks: (a)  After the result   of  an  examination  has  been  announced,  the   marks obtained in such paper by a candidate   maybe communicated to him, and to him alone,   on  application,  and  on  payment  of  a  fee  of   Re.1/- per examination per candidate….. (d) Application  for supply of marks should be   given priority at all stages.”   

Thereafter, the Assistant General Manager, Recruitment &  

Establishment,  Calcutta  Telephones  wrote  a  letter  to  the  

3

Assistant  Director  General  (Departmental  Examination),  

New Delhi on 9th February,  2000 requesting disclosure of  

marks obtained by the respondents in the said examination.  

6. The  respondents’  request  for  being  intimated  of  the  

marks  secured  was  not  acceded  to,  nor  did  the  

authorities reply to the representation.  

7. Thereafter, the respondents filed O.A. No. 629 of 2000  

before  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal  seeking  

disclosure of marks and disposal of the representation  

by  the  respondents.  Vide  its  order  dated  26th July,  

2000 the tribunal  directed the appellants  to publish  

the  result  of  the  said  examination,  dispose  off  the  

representation and allow the respondents to appear in  

the examination next year.

8. The  Chief  General  Manager,  Calcutta  Telephones  

complying with the order of  the tribunal disposed of  

the  respondent’s  representation  by  means  of  a  

speaking  order.  It  was  stated  therein,  that  the  

4

respondent’s candidature was cancelled on account of  

some irregular practices having been noticed on their  

part.  It  was  further  stated  that  on  account  of  

cancellation of candidature, it was not permissible to  

communicate the marks obtained by the respondents  

in  the  said  examination  contemplating  disciplinary  

proceedings for adopting unfair means.

9. Challenging the abovementioned order passed by the  

Chief  General  Manager,  Calcutta  Telephones,  the  

respondents  filed  W.P.  No.  18313  of  2004  in  the  

Calcutta  High  Court.  The  writ  petition  was  allowed,  

quashing  the  order  of  cancellation  of  candidature  of  

the respondents. The learned Single Judge held that  

the  appellants  had  failed  to  establish  their  claim  

wherein  the  respondents  were  accused  of  mass  

copying and were, therefore, obliged to intimate to the  

respondents,  the  marks  secured  by  them  in  the  

examination.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  

had alleged before the learned Single Judge that the  

syllabus  for  the  examination  prescribed  the  books  

5

allowed to  be  used  by  the  candidates  for  answering  

questions  however;  the  respondents  had  used  guide  

books for answering questions in the examination. Use  

of  guide  books  was  not  permissible.  The  Learned  

Single  Judge  observed  that,  the  allegation  was  

unfounded  since  the  supervising  officers  in  the  

examination hall did not prevent the respondents from  

using  the  guide  books.   Moreover,  no  disciplinary  

action was initiated against the respondents. On the  

other  hand,  the  respondents  were  awarded  ad  hoc  

promotion to the post of Junior Accounts Officer; an  

unmarred  vigilance  report  is  a  pre-requisite  for  the  

same.  The  reports  submitted  by  the  vigilance  wing  

stated that  the examination was conducted in a fair  

and peaceful manner. The appellants were, therefore,  

directed  to  inform  the  respondents  of  the  marks  

obtained by them and to consider them for promotion  

if successful in the examination. They were also held  

entitled  to  the  financial  benefits  that  would  have  

accrued to them since the date of adhoc promotion.

6

10. The appellants aggrieved by the order and judgment of  

the  learned  Single  Judge,  filed  appeal  before  the  

Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court vide FMA  

No. 807 of 2009.  The Division Bench dismissed the  

appeal by affirming the decision of the learned Single  

Judge.  The  Division  Bench  has  observed  that  the  

appellants’  contention  of  there  being  no  scope  for  

disciplinary action against the erring employees could  

not be accepted, especially since the respondents had  

been granted ad-hoc  promotion.  The Division Bench  

stated that it is well settled that promotion wipes out  

all past alleged misconduct. It was also observed that  

the  respondent’s  decision  not  to  appear  in  the  

examination in the subsequent year could not act as  

an estoppel for challenging the action of the appellants.  

Hence, the present appeal.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  

12. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the appellants submitted that both the learned Single  

7

Judge  as  well  as  the  Division  Bench  have  erred  in  

coming  to  the  conclusion  that  the  decision  for  

cancellation of the examination was in breach of rules  

of natural justice. She submits that this is a case of  

mass-copying;  therefore,  the  question  of  giving  

opportunity of hearing to each individual candidate did  

not  arise.  Rule  18  is  applicable  in  the  case  of  

individual candidate who is found to have used unfair  

means. In this case, mass-copying was discovered only  

because the answers given to some of the questions  

were  identical.  Subsequently,  it  was  discovered  that  

answers  to  questions  in  Paper  X  given  by  66  

candidates  was  so  much  similar  as  to  indicate  

suspected  mass-copying.  Consequently,  a  three  

member  committee  was  constituted  to  examine  the  

issues. Upon examination of the relevant material, the  

committee  concluded  that  it  was  a  case  of  mass-

copying. On the basis of their report, the candidature  

of 66 candidates including the respondents herein was  

cancelled.  Learned  senior  counsel  further  submitted  

that the candidates had copied the answers from guide  

8

book  which  was  not  permissible.  They  were  only  

entitled to make the use of the books which was on the  

list of the prescribed books. It is further submitted that  

undoubtedly  the  candidates  had  been  given  ad-hoc  

promotion.  However,  for  regular  promotion,  it  was  

necessary for the candidates to pass the departmental  

examination. She further submits that CAT in its order  

dated 26th July, 2000 had directed the appellants to  

allow  the  respondents  and  all  other  candidates  to  

appear  in  the  examination,  if  they  were  otherwise  

eligible or if they wish to appear.  Taking advantage of  

this  direction,  42  candidates,  who  were  similarly  

situated  as  the  respondents,  appeared  in  the  

subsequent examination.  They were duly given regular  

promotion.  However, the respondents did not avail of  

the chance.   Therefore, they can not claim promotion  

on  regular  basis.   In  support  of  her  submissions,  

learned senior counsel relied on the judgments in the  

case of  The Board of High School & Intermediate  

Education  U.P.  Vs.  Bagleshwar  Prasad1,  Union  

1 (1962 3 SCR 767)

9

Public Service Commission Vs. Jagannath Mishra  2  ,  

Madhyamic  Shiksha  Mandal,  M.P. Vs.  Abilash  

Shiksha Prasar Samiti  3  ,   Chairman J & K State  

Board Education  Vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Ors.  4  ,  

and  Chairman,  All  India  Railway  Recruitment  

Board Vs. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors.  5    

13. Mr. Bidyut Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior counsel  

appearing for  the respondents submits that  the SLP  

does not involve any substantial question of law. The  

learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench has  

only redressed the injustice that had been done to the  

respondents. Learned senior counsel submits that this  

plea of mass-copying is an afterthought; initially when  

the  respondents  had  approached  the  CAT,  the  

appellants  did  not  take  any  plea with  regard to  the  

cancellation  of  the  whole  examination.  The  

respondents  only  came to  know about  it  when they  

received the  speaking  order.  Learned  senior  counsel  

2 2009 (9) SCC 237 3 (1998 (9) SCC 236, 4 (2000 (3) SCC 59) 5 (2010 (6) SCC 614).

10

further  submitted  that  during  the  proceeding  before  

the  learned  Single  Judge,  the  appellants  did  not  

produce  the  original  record,  therefore,  the  question  

would arise as to ‘how’ and ‘who’ cancelled the result  

of  the  entire  examination.  It  is  submitted  by  Mr.  

Mukherjee  that  the  report  of  the  three  member  

departmental  committee  was  available  with  the  

department on 3rd January, 2000. The same was not  

brought to the notice of the CAT when it delivered its  

order on 26th July, 2000. It is further submitted that  

there is no provision under the rules for constituting a  

three  member  committee.  In  any  event,  the  

proceedings  before  the  committee  are  shrouded  in  

mystery. None of the candidates was asked to appear  

before the committee, even the examiners and/or the  

supervising  staff  were not  called  for  questioning.  By  

his letter dated 14th October, 1999,      DGM (Admn.)  

Calcutta  Telephones  forwarded  the  report  of  DE  

(Vigilance)/CTD to ADG (DE), New Delhi. In this report,  

it was stated that the examination was conducted in a  

fair and peaceful manner on all the three dates as per  

11

the  report  of  the  Officers  of  the  Vigilance  Wing.  

Making  a  reference  to  the  rules  relating  to  the  

departmental examination, Part III of the rules relates  

to  instructions  for  the  supervising  officers.  Rule  4C  

requires  that  the  supervising  officer  should  make  

certain announcements before the commencement of  

the  examination.  These  are  that:  candidates  should  

make sure that they have no unauthorized books or  

paper with them; they should carefully read and follow  

the instructions on the cover of  the answer book as  

also on the question paper and they will  be expelled  

from the examination hall for resorting to unfair means  

and subjected to departmental  proceedings.  Rule  4E  

provides that supervision must be effective and active.  

It is not sufficient for them to be merely present in the  

examination hall. Referring to Rule 26, learned senior  

counsel submits that on conclusion of the examination  

after the last paper, the supervising officer is required  

to  give  a  very  comprehensive  certificate  in  the  form  

prescribed  in  the  aforesaid  rules.  According  to  the  

learned senior counsel, once the certificate was issued  

12

by  the  supervising  staff,  a  presumption  would  arise  

that  the  candidates  had  not  used  any  books  of  

reference  except  those  authorised  for  answering  

papers. Learned senior counsel further submitted that  

action  against  the  departmental  candidates  is  to  be  

taken under Rule 18 contained in Part I of the Rules  

relating to departmental examination. Under this rule,  

there  is  no  provision  for  cancellation  of  the  report.  

Under  Rule  14  of  Part  IV,  disciplinary  proceedings  

have  to  be  initiated  against  the  candidate  for  using  

unfair means. None of the candidates were proceeded  

against, departmentally. It is submitted that the result  

could be cancelled only after the candidate is  found  

guilty.  This can only be on the basis of  a finding of  

unfair  means  given  by  a  properly  constituted  

committee. Without completing the proceeding under  

the aforesaid rules,  42 candidates were permitted to  

take the examination on the basis of the order passed  

by the CAT on 26th July, 2000. Those candidates had  

been  given  regular  promotion  on  the  basis  of  the  

subsequent examination.  The respondents have been  

13

denied the promotions as they have not appeared in  

the  examination.  According  to  the  learned  senior  

counsel,  the  action  of  the  respondents  in  not  

permitting  the  respondents  promotion  on  a  regular  

basis  is  violative  of  Articles  14  and  16  of  the  

Constitution.  It  is  emphasised by Mr.Mukherjee that  

all the respondents have been given ad-hoc promotion  

and are continuing on the promoted post.  Since the  

ad-hoc promotion can be given only with the clearance  

from  the  vigilance  department,  according  to  the  

learned senior counsel, the respondents are entitled to  

be regularized on the post on which they have been  

promoted  on  ad-hoc  basis  on  numerous  occasions.  

Finally, it is submitted by Mr.Mukherjee that, in fact,  

there is no conclusive proof that the respondents have  

indulged in mass copying from the guide book which  

had  not  even  been  published  at  the  time  of  the  

examination.  It is pointed out that the guide book was  

published in December, 1999 whereas the examination  

had been held on 18th, 19th & 20th of February, 1999.  

According to the learned senior counsel the judgment  

14

of the Division Bench correctly recorded the conclusion  

that  since  the  respondents  have  been  given  ad-hoc  

promotion in the next  higher rank, any past  alleged  

misconduct is wiped out.  

14. In  reply,  Ms.  Pinki  Anand,  learned  senior  counsel  

reiterated that rule 18 has no application in the facts  

and circumstances of this case. There is no provision  

under the rules specifically dealing with cases of mass-

copying.  The  rule  only  deals  with  the  cases  of  

individual use of unfair means. Learned senior counsel  

further  submitted  that  the  respondents  have  not  

pleaded either in the OA or in reply to the writ petition  

in  the  High  Court  that  the  cancellation  of  the  

examination was in breach of rules of natural justice.  

Even the submissions with regard to breach of rules of  

natural  justice  are  made  for  the  first  time  in  this  

Court.  

15. We  have  considered  the  submissions  made  by  the  

learned  counsel  for  the  parties  at  length.  The  

15

undisputed  facts  are  that  all  the  respondents  had  

participated  in  the  departmental  examination.  The  

respondents  were  permitted  the  use  of  books  

specifically prescribed for the purpose of answering the  

question paper. The books that are prescribed do not  

include  the  guide  book  which  was  used  by  all  the  

candidates. Upon completion of the examination, the  

supervisor  undoubtedly  gave  a  report  that  the  

examination  has  been held  peacefully  and  in  a  fair  

manner.  

16. On this basis, Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that this  

would lead to a presumption that no unfair means had  

been  used.  We  are  unable  to  accept  such  a  

submission.  The  report  at  best  indicates  that  the  

examination  was  not  disrupted  by  any  untoward  

incident.  It has been rightly pointed out by Ms. Pinki  

Anand that the use of unfair means was not detected  

in  the  examination  centre.   It  was  detected  by  the  

examiner  of  the  answer  books  of  Paper  X.  It  was  

noticed that the answers written by 66 candidates at  

16

the centre at which the respondents along with other  

candidates had taken the examination were so similar  

as  to  indicate  that  this  case  is  a  suspected  mass  

copying. The examiner, therefore, did not evaluate the  

answer books of  the candidates allegedly involved in  

mass-copying.  With  a  view  to  look  into  the  

observations  of  the  examiner,  it  was decided by  the  

Adviser (Finance), DOT that the answer books of the  

candidates  suspected  to  have  indulged  in  mass-

copying be gone through by three high ranking officers  

of  the  department.  Therefore  a  three  member  

committee was constituted to submit its report on the  

following points :  

(a) Whether  the  observation  of  the  examiner  is  

correct  that  the  answers  written  by  the  

candidates tally word for word with those given in  

the key and therefore full marks would have to be  

awarded  to  all  these  candidates  suspected  to  

have indulged in mass-copying;

b) Whether  the  observation  of  the  examiner  

regarding suspected mass-copying is reasonably  

17

substantiated on the basis of  the review of  the  

answer-books; and

c)  In  case  the  inference  of  mass-copying  is  not  

reasonably  established,  the  committee  should  

also  suggest  guidelines,  if  any,  considered  

necessary for evaluating these answer-books.

17. The aforesaid committee examined all the 66 answer  

books  through  evaluated  answer  books  which  were  

supplied  for  comparison  and review.  The  Committee  

observed as follows:

1. The  observation  of  the  examiner  is  correct.  

This is an established case of mass copying.  

2. The mass copying was made easy because the  

paper was set from one guide book only and  

all answers were available in the same book.

3. Co-incidentally  guide  book  is  written  by  the  

officer stationed at Calcutta so it is presumed  

that this guide book might be readily available  

with candidates.

18

4. Though guide is not authorised as a reference  

book it seems that the centre supervisor has  

not  taken  proper  care  and  because  of  his  

negligence the guide book might be available  

in the examination hall.   

18. We are of the considered opinion that the procedure  

adopted by the appellants can not be said to be unfair  

or arbitrary.  It was a reasonable and fair procedure  

adopted in the peculiar circumstances of the case.  It  

can not  be said to  be  in  breach of  rules of  Natural  

Justice.  It must be remembered that rules of Natural  

Justice are not embodied rules.  They can not be put  

in  a  strait-jacket.   The  purpose  of  rules  of  Natural  

Justice  is  to  ensure  that  the  order  causing  civil  

consequences is not passed arbitrarily.  It is not that  

in  every  case  there  must  be  an  opportunity  of  oral  

hearing. We may notice here the observations made by  

this  Court  in  the  case  of  Bihar  School  Education  

Board Vs.  Subhas  Chandra  Sinha  6  ,  wherein  a  

similar plea with regard to breach of rules of Natural  6 (1970 (1) SCC 648)

19

Justice  was  examined.  In  this  case,  the  appellant  

board had cancelled the examination upon detection of  

mass copying without affording the affected candidates  

the right to be heard. This Court rejected the plea of  

breach of rules of Natural Justice, as follows:-

“This is not a case of any particular individual who is   being charged with  adoption  of  unfair  means but of   the  conduct  of  all  the  examinees  or  at  least  a  vast   majority  of  them at  a particular  centre.  If  it  is  not a   question of charging any one individually with unfair   means but to condemn the examination as ineffective   for the purpose it was held. Must the Board give an   opportunity  to  all  the  candidates  to  represent  their   cases?  We  think  not.  It  was  not  necessary  for  the   Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if  the   examinations  as  a whole  were  being  cancelled.  The   Board had not charged any one with unfair means so   that he could claim to defend himself. The examination   was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass   scale.  In  these  circumstances  it  would  be  wrong  to   insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into   the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy   itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair   means. The examination as a whole had to go.”

(emphasis supplied)

19. In the present case, there is not even a denial that the  

answers have been taken from the guidebook.  Mass  

copying is accepted on the plea that it was permissible  

to  take  books  into  the  examination.   This  plea  was  

rejected by the Expert Committee, as the candidates  

were only allowed to use the books prescribed in the  

20

syllabus.  The guidebook used by the candidates was  

not permitted to be taken into the examination centre.  

Given  the  fact  situation  in  the  present  case,  the  

appellant constituted a three members Committee of  

high ranking officers to enquire into the matter.  Since  

there is  no provision under the rules with regard to  

mass  copying,  the  appellants  were  fully  justified  in  

constituting a Committee to enquire into the matter.  

20. We may also make a reference here to the observations  

made by this Court in the case of  Union of India &  

Ors.  Vs. Anand Kumar Pandey & Ors.  7    In this case,  

the  Railway  Recruitment  Board,  Patna  invited  

applications  for  selection and recruitment of  various  

posts  of  Non-technical  Popular  categories  in  the  

Eastern Railway.  The selection was to be made on the  

basis of a written examination followed by a viva-voce  

test.  A  large  number  of  candidates  appeared  in  the  

written test from various centres in the city of Katihar.  

The respondents  in  the  appeal  had  appeared in the  

written examination and duly qualified.  They had also  7 1994(5) SCC 663

21

qualified in the viva-voce test  and their  names were  

included  in  the  panel  of  selected  candidates,  which  

was published.   On a complaint  of  mass copying at  

Centre No. 115, the Railway Authorities conducted an  

enquiry and found the complaint to be correct.  The  

Railway  Authorities  decided  to  subject  the  35  

candidates,  who  had  qualified  the  written  test  from  

Centre No. 115, to a fresh examination.  The CAT set  

aside this decision of the Railway Authorities as being  

violative of rules of Natural Justice.  It was held that a  

panel of selected candidates having been prepared and  

published,  the  same could  not  be  cancelled  without  

assigning  any  reason  and  without  affording  

opportunity to the empanelled candidates.  On appeal  

by the Union of India, this Court set aside the decision  

of  the  Tribunal.   It  was  held  that  the  Tribunal  was  

wholly  unjustified  in  interfering  the  order  of  the  

appellants,  calling  on  the  respondents  to  sit  in  the  

written  examination  again.   In  Paragraph  9  of  the  

aforesaid judgment, it is observed as follows:-

“This  Court  has  repeatedly  held  that  the  rules  of   natural  justice  cannot  be  put  in  a  strait-jacket.   

22

Applicability  of  these  rules  depends  upon  the  facts   and  circumstances  relating  to  each  particular  given   situation. Out of the total candidates who appeared in   the  written  test  at  the  Centre  concerned  only  35   candidates  qualified  the  test.  In  that  situation  the   action  of  the  railway  authorities  in  directing  the  35   candidates  of  Centre  No.  115  to  appear  in  a  fresh   written  examination  virtually  amounts  to  cancelling   the result of the said centre. Although it would have   been fair to call upon all the candidates who appeared   from Centre No. 115 to take the written  examination   again but in the facts and circumstances of this case   no fault can be found with  the action of the railway   authorities  in  calling  upon  only  35  (empanelled   candidates)  to  take  the  examination  afresh.  The  purpose of a competitive  examination is to  select the   most  suitable  candidates  for  appointment  to  public   services.  It  is  entirely  different than  an  examination   held by a college or university to award degrees to the   candidates  appearing  at  the  examination.  Even if  a   candidate is selected he may still be not appointed for   a justifiable  reason.  In  the present case the railway   authorities have rightly refused to make appointments   on the basis of the written examination wherein unfair   means were adopted by the candidates. No candidate   had  been  debarred  or  disqualified  from  taking  the   exam. To make sure that the deserving candidates are   selected  the  respondents  have  been  asked  to  go   through the process of written examination once again.   We are  of  the  view that  there  is  no violation  of  the   rules of natural justice in any manner in the facts and   circumstances of this case.”

21. As noticed earlier, in the present case, the appellants  

had adopted a very reasonable and a fair approach.  A  

bonafide enquiry into the fact situation was conducted  

by  a  Committee  of  high  ranking  officers  of  the  

department.   In  our  opinion,  the  High  Court  was  

23

wholly  unjustified  in  interfering  with  the  decision  

taken by the appellants in the peculiar circumstances  

of the case.  It is settled beyond cavil that the decisions  

taken by the competent authority could be corrected  

provided  it  is  established  that  the  decision  is  so  

perverse that no sensible person, who had applied his  

mind to the question to be decided could have arrived  

at it.  The aforesaid principle is based on the ground of  

irrationality  and  is  known as  Wednesbury  Principle.  

The  Court  can  interfere  with  a  decision,  if  it  is  so  

absurd that no reasonable authority could have taken  

such  a  decision.   In  our  opinion,  the  procedure  

adopted  by  the  appellants  can  not  be  said  to  be  

suffering  from  any  such  irrationality  or  

unreasonableness, which would have enabled the High  

Court to interfere with the decision.

22. It is perhaps keeping in mind the aforesaid principles  

that this Court in the case of B. Ramanjini & Ors. Vs.  

State of A.P  . & Ors.  8, indicated that a decision taken  

by  the  competent  authority  on the  basis  of  relevant  8 2002(5) SCC 533

24

material ought not to be lightly interfered with by the  

Court  in exercise  of  its  power of  judicial  review.   In  

Paragraph  8  of  the  aforesaid  judgment,  this  Court  

observed as follows:

“Further, even if it was not a case of mass copying or  leakage  of  question  papers  or  such  other  circumstance, it  is clear that in the conduct of  the  examination, a fair procedure has to be adopted. Fair  procedure  would  mean  that  the  candidates  taking  part  in  the  examination  must  be  capable  of  competing with each other by fair means. One cannot  have an advantage either by copying or by having a  foreknowledge of the question paper or otherwise. In  such matters wide latitude should be shown to the  Government  and  the  courts  should  not  unduly  interfere  with  the  action taken by the  Government  which is in possession of the necessary information  and takes action upon the same. The courts ought  not to take the action lightly and interfere with the  same particularly when there was some material for  the Government to act one way or the other.”

(emphasis supplied)

23. In view of these observations, we are of the considered  

opinion  that  the  High  Court  ought  not  to  have  

interfered with  the  decision  taken by  the  appellants  

requiring  the  candidates,  who  appeared  in  the  

cancelled examination, to reappear in the subsequent  

examination, in order to qualify for regular promotion.

25

24. We also do not find any merit in the submissions of  

Mr.Mukherjee that all cases of unfair means have to be  

examined on the basis of Rule 18 of Part I of the rules.  

The  aforesaid  rule  deals  with  the  situation  where  a  

candidate  is  found  or  discovered to  be  using  unfair  

means  in  the  examination  itself.  It  is  only  in  these  

circumstances that the candidate has to be subjected  

to disciplinary proceeding which has to be conducted  

on the basis of the report submitted under Rule 14(4).  

Since  this  is  a  case  of  mass-  copying,  which  was  

discovered only at the time of the review of the answer  

books,  Rule  18  would  have  no  relevance.  Rule  14  

would  not,  in  any  manner,  improve  the  case  of  the  

respondents  as  it  merely  enables  the  disciplinary  

authority to impose major penalty on a candidate who  

is found to have used unfair means. Merely because no  

disciplinary  proceedings  have  been  initiated  against  

the respondents, it would not be a justification to hold  

that the cancellation of the result is in any manner,  

impermissible.

26

25. We are also of the considered opinion that the Division  

Bench was not justified in holding that merely because  

the respondents had been given ad-hoc promotion, the  

previous  alleged  misconduct  stands  wiped  out.  The  

respondents were given equal opportunity to compete  

in the examination subsequent to the cancellation of  

their examination result. It is a matter of record that  

42  candidates  who  were  similarly  placed  took  

advantage of the order passed by the CAT on 26th July,  

2000  and  appeared  in  the  subsequent  examination.  

They have been promoted in accordance with the rule  

to  the  next  higher  post.  The  respondents,  however,  

chose not to appear in the examination. They cannot  

at this stage be permitted to complain that they have  

been treated unfairly.

26. In view of the above, we are of the opinion, that the  

judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division  

Bench  impugned  herein  are  not  sustainable.  

Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgments  

27

of  the  learned  Single  Judge  as  well  as  the  Division  

Bench are hereby set aside.                                 

   ……………………………..J.                                         [Altamas Kabir]

……………………………..J.                                                    [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

       …………………………..…J.            [Gyan Sudha Misra]

New Delhi; November 03, 2011.          

28