9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1274 - SC - Indian LawsGenuinity and Validity of examination - The allegation is that they had collected money from some of the candidates who were to appear in the said examination by assuring them appointments - cancellation of examination - 1st submission of the appellant is that there is no proof of tampering with the examination process on a large scale as asserted by the respondent but there are only allegations of such tampering the truth of which has never been tested by any established process of law. Therefore the decision of the respondent to cancel the examination in its entirety is without any basis in law. Held that - Purity of the examination process - whether such examination process pertains to assessment of the academic accomplishment or suitability of candidates for employment under the State - is an unquestionable requirement of the rationality of any examination process. Rationality is an indispensable aspect of public administration under our Constitution - The authority of the State to take appropriate measures to maintain the purity of any examination process is unquestionable. It is too well settled a principle of law in light of the various earlier decisions of this Court that where there are allegations of the occurrence of large scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examination process the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel the examination. Coming to the case on hand there were allegations of large scale tampering with the examination process. Scrutiny of the answer sheets (OMR) revealed that there were glaring aberrations which provide prima facie proof of the occurrence of a large scale tampering of the examination process. Denying power to the State from taking appropriate remedial actions in such circumstances on the ground that the State did not establish the truth of those allegations in accordance with the rules of evidence relevant for the proof of facts in a Court of law (either in a criminal or a civil proceeding) would neither be consistent with the demands of larger public interest nor would be conducive to the efficiency of administration. No binding precedent is brought to our notice which compels us to hold otherwise. Therefore the 1st submission is rejected. Whether the impugned decision could be sustained judged in the light of the principles of Wednesbury unreasonableness ? - Held that - In the language of Lord Diplock the principle is that a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it . Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the prima facie proof indicating the possibility of occurrence of large scale tampering with the examination process which led to the impugned action it cannot be said that the impugned action of the respondent is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or moral standards . Therefore the 2nd submission of the appellant is also required to be rejected. Whether the magnitude of the impugned action is so disproportionate to the mischief sought to be addressed by the respondents that the cancellation of the entire examination process affecting lakhs of candidates cannot be justified on the basis of doctrine of proportionality? - Held that - there were large scale malpractices at the examination process and the State was entitled to take appropriate remedial action. In the context of the occurrence of such malpractice obviously there can be two classes of candidates those who had resorted to malpractice and others who did not. By the impugned action no doubt all of them were treated alike. Whether such herding together would amount to the denial of the equal protection guaranteed under Article 14 is the question - Identifying all the candidates who are guilty of malpractice either by criminal prosecution or even by an administrative enquiry is certainly a time consuming process. If it were to be the requirement of law that such identification of the wrong doers is a must and only the identified wrongdoers be eliminated from the selection process and until such identification is completed the process cannot be carried on it would not only result in a great inconvenience to the administration but also result in a loss of time even to the innocent candidates - it cannot be said that the impugned action is vitiated by lack of nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the State by herding all the candidates at the examination together. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the cancellation of the examination without investigation or proof. 2. Application of the principle of 'Wednesbury Reasonableness' and proportionality to the cancellation decision. 3. Judicial review of administrative action and the principles governing it. 4. Examination of whether the respondents followed the legal principles in their decision-making process. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Cancellation of the Examination Without Investigation or Proof: The appellants argued that the cancellation of the examination without any investigation or proof of the allegations of a vitiated examination process is illegal. They contended that the decision was based on mere allegations and lacked any established process of law to test the truth of these allegations. However, the Court emphasized that the purity of the examination process is an unquestionable requirement of rationality in public administration. It is well-settled that the State has the authority to cancel examinations when there are allegations of large-scale malpractices. The Court cited previous judgments where similar actions were upheld, stating that the State is entitled to take appropriate measures to maintain the integrity of the examination process without needing to establish the truth of each allegation in a court of law. Therefore, the Court rejected the appellants' submission, affirming the State's power to cancel the examination based on reasonable material indicating tampering. 2. Application of the Principle of 'Wednesbury Reasonableness' and Proportionality to the Cancellation Decision: The appellants argued that the decision to cancel the examination was unreasonable and disproportionate to the alleged mischief. The Court referred to the principle of 'Wednesbury unreasonableness,' which applies to decisions that are so outrageous in their defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person could have arrived at them. The Court found that the respondents' decision, given the nature of the allegations and prima facie proof of large-scale tampering, did not defy logic or moral standards. Therefore, the decision was not unreasonable. Regarding proportionality, the Court discussed the doctrine's application, distinguishing between administrative actions affecting fundamental freedoms and those violating Article 14. The Court concluded that the impugned action did not violate fundamental freedoms and was not arbitrary under Article 14. The decision to cancel the examination was proportionate, given the large-scale malpractices and the need to maintain the examination process's integrity. 3. Judicial Review of Administrative Action and the Principles Governing It: The Court outlined the principles governing judicial review of administrative action, referencing landmark cases such as Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation and Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. The principles include illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety. The Court noted that judicial review typically examines the decision-making process rather than the decision itself. The Court emphasized that the State's authority to cancel examinations in the face of large-scale malpractices is well-established and supported by previous judgments. The Court also highlighted that the State is not obliged to seek proof of each fact vitiating the examination process, as long as there is reasonable material indicating tampering. 4. Examination of Whether the Respondents Followed the Legal Principles in Their Decision-Making Process: The Court examined the respondents' decision-making process in light of the principles of judicial review. The Court found that the respondents' decision to cancel the examination was based on reasonable material indicating large-scale tampering. The decision was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or disproportionate. The Court also noted that the decision provided an opportunity for all candidates, including those who did not engage in malpractice, to participate in a fresh examination. The State's provision to relax the upper age limit for candidates affected by the cancellation further supported the decision's reasonableness and proportionality. Therefore, the Court concluded that the respondents followed the legal principles in their decision-making process. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the legality and reasonableness of the respondents' decision to cancel the examination. The decision was based on reasonable material indicating large-scale tampering, and the State's actions were proportionate and in line with established legal principles. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
