1992 (2) TMI 189 - SC - Indian Laws

Does the rule of natural justice has no exception? Is denial of opportunity of hearing in every circumstance arbitrary? Held that - Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not effect any interest and call for immediate action such as the present one where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would have been more unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice. It cannot be equated with where a student is found copying in the examination or an inference arises against him for copying due to similarity in answers of number of other candidates or he is charged with misconduct or misbehaviour. Direction not to write roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer book. Once it was violated the issue of bona fide and honest mistake did not arise. Its consequences even if not provided did not make any difference in law. The action could not be characterised as arbitrary. It was not denial of equal opportunity. The reverse may be true. The Tribunal appears to have been swayed by principles applied by this Court where an examinee is found copying or using unfair means in the examination. But in doing so the Tribunal ignored a vital distinction that there may be cases where the right of hearing may be excluded by the very nature of the power or absence of any expectation that the hearing shall be afforded. Rule of hearing has been construed strictly in academic disciplines. It should be construed more strictly in such cases where an examinee is competing for Civil Service post. The very nature of the competition requires that it should be fair above board and must infuse confidence. If this is ignored then as stated earlier it is not only against public interest but it also erodes the social sense of equality. The Tribunal in issuing directions approached the matter technically and has attempted to make out much where it would have been better part of discretion to refuse to interfere. The tribunal completely misdirected itself in this regard. In our opinion its order cannot be maintained. Appeals succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the tribunal is set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of opportunity of hearing and natural justice.
2. Authority of the Commission to regulate examinations and take action against candidates.
3. Violation of natural justice in the context of competitive examinations.
4. Public interest and fairness in conducting competitive examinations.
5. Exclusion of natural justice in certain circumstances.
6. Misdirection by the Tribunal in issuing directions.
7. Authority of filing Special Leave Petitions against the decision of the Commission.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the denial of the opportunity of hearing and whether it constitutes a violation of natural justice. The State of Karnataka and the Public Service Commission challenged the directions issued by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, which required the evaluation of answer books of candidates who had violated instructions by writing their roll numbers inside the answer books without providing them with an opportunity to explain their actions. The Tribunal found this denial arbitrary and potentially detrimental to candidates aspiring for public service.

2. The judgment delves into the power and authority of the Commission to conduct examinations, enforce regulations, and take action against candidates for misconduct. The Tribunal negated the candidates' claim that the Commission had no right to penalize them for violating instructions regarding roll number placement inside answer books. The Commission's actions were deemed justified as the instructions were clear and mandatory, emphasizing the importance of discipline in competitive examinations.

3. The court emphasized the significance of upholding fairness in examinations to maintain public interest and integrity. It highlighted the need to prevent any attempts at candidate identification, stressing the importance of adhering to instructions to ensure a level playing field for all candidates.

4. The judgment also addressed the broader concept of natural justice and its application in cases where urgency, public interest, or the nature of the matter may necessitate flexibility in affording a hearing. In this instance, the court concluded that the denial of an opportunity for a hearing was justified as the matter did not involve misconduct or punishment.

5. The judgment recognized exceptions to the rule of natural justice, particularly in cases where immediate action is required, such as in competitive examinations where delays could lead to unfairness. The court differentiated these exceptions from situations involving misconduct or unfair means during examinations, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to rules in the context of civil service competitions.

6. The Tribunal's decision was criticized for technicality and overreach, with the court noting that the Tribunal had misdirected itself by issuing directions that were not warranted in the circumstances. The court ultimately set aside the Tribunal's order.

7. Lastly, the judgment highlighted the issue of authority in filing Special Leave Petitions against the decision of the Commission, expressing concern over unauthorized filings and emphasizing the importance of proper procedures to prevent harm to institutions. The appeals were allowed, and specific directions were given regarding the evaluation of answer books for candidates who violated instructions.