2010 (7) TMI 967 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the candidates who appeared in the typewriting test had no indefeasible or absolute right to seek an appointment, yet the same did not give a licence to the competent authority to cancel the examination and the result thereof in an arbitrary manner? Whether or not the cancellation of the typing test was arbitrary?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the cancellation of the typewriting test conducted on 30th October 2006.
2. Arbitrary nature of the cancellation order.
3. Rights of candidates who appeared in the test.
4. Judicial review of administrative decisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Cancellation of the Typewriting Test Conducted on 30th October 2006:
The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer of East Coast Railway issued a notification for a typewriting test to fill vacant posts of Chief Typists. The test was conducted on 30th October 2006, and the results were announced on 22nd November 2006. Following complaints from unsuccessful candidates about defective typewriting machines, the Divisional Manager cancelled the test on 14th December 2006 and scheduled a fresh test on 16th December 2006. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upheld the cancellation, but the High Court of Andhra Pradesh set aside this decision, directing the selection process to continue based on the original test. The Supreme Court examined whether the cancellation was justified.

2. Arbitrary Nature of the Cancellation Order:
The High Court found the cancellation order arbitrary as it lacked reasons. The Supreme Court reiterated that public orders must be judged by the reasons stated within the order or contemporaneously maintained records. The absence of reasons in the cancellation order rendered it arbitrary and unsustainable. The Court cited precedents, including *Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji* and *Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner*, to emphasize that reasons cannot be supplemented later through affidavits.

3. Rights of Candidates Who Appeared in the Test:
The Supreme Court acknowledged that while candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by appearing in a test or being on a merit list, the State cannot act arbitrarily. The Court referenced *Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India* and other cases to highlight that the State must respect the merit of candidates and act in a non-arbitrary manner. The cancellation of the test without proper reasons was deemed arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions:
The Court emphasized that judicial review is permissible to ensure administrative decisions are not arbitrary. The Court examined whether the cancellation of the test was arbitrary, concluding that the absence of reasons indicated a lack of proper application of mind by the authority. The Court noted that the competent authority must apply its mind to complaints and record reasons for cancellation to ensure fairness and transparency.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order, directing the competent authority to reconsider the representations from unsuccessful candidates and decide whether the original test was fair. If the authority finds the test flawed, it can cancel it and use the results of the second test. If no flaws are found, the second test will be cancelled, and the original test results will be used. The authority was directed to make a decision within two months to avoid further delays in the selection process.