Principles Of En-Masse Cancellation - Indian Laws - General

Principles Of En-Masse Cancellation In law it is permissible to cancel the entire selection process if it is held that the same is tainted to such an extent that it may not be possible to separate the innocent from the tainted ones. As, for example, in a case of mass cheating adopted by the students in a Board Examination, it may be permissible to cancel the entire examination. When selections, however, are carried out not by one agency but by several ones, the principle of en masse cancellation may not apply. In this case , admittedly, several District Level Committees have carried out the selection process and in that view of the matter it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to consider the mode of manner of selection made by each one of them individually. It was not a case of mass cheating in an examination or an illegality or gross irregularity in the selection process which would lead to cancellation of the entire selection process. In the writ petition, the writ petitioners have not disclosed as to how each one of the licensees who had appeared as respondents therein were ineligible or otherwise disqualified and/ or did not fulfil the conditions therefor. Had such opportunities been given, the State as also the said respondents could have met the said allegations. Such allegations were made only in the rejoinder. No new plea ordinarily could have been permitted in the rejoinder without the leave of the court. We would not have commented upon this as the High Court does not appear to have placed reliance upon the additional affidavit filed by the State inter alia on the ground that the same being a sur-rejoinder could not have been filed. The High Court s attention was evidently not drawn to the fact that writ petitioners brought on record new facts for the first time in the rejoinder and, thus, the State was entitled to file a sur-rejoinder controverting the allegations made therein. In Benny T.D. and Others v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Another [(1998) 5 SCC 269], this Court repelled a contention raised therein that in view of the findings of the Public Inquiry Commission that there has been tampering of marks in respect of several candidates and as such there has been no fair and objective selection, public interest demanded annulment of the entire selection. This Court held that the same could not be done as the same would tantamount to gross violation of principles of natural justice which cannot be brushed aside on the ground that public interest demands annulment of the selection. Yet again in Onkar Lal Bajaj and Others v. Union of India and Another[(2003) 2 SCC 673], this Court while dealing with a case of en masse cancellation of the licences granted to the LPG Distributors as a result whereof unequals were said to have been clubbed by reason of arbitrary exercise of executive power, the same was held to be impermissible stating: The solution by resorting to cancellation of all was worse than the problem. Cure was worse than the disease. Equal treatment to unequals is nothing but inequality. To put both the categories - tainted and the rest -on a par is wholly unjustified, arbitrary, unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution It was further held: The aforesaid observations would apply with equal if not more force to DSBs if media exposure that the allotments were made either to the high political functionaries themselves or their near and dear ones is correct, the authorities would not only be justified in examining such cases but it would be their duty to do so. Instead of fulfilling that duty and obligation, the executive cannot unjustly resort to cancellation of all the allotments en masse by treating unequals as equals without even prima facie examining any cases exposed by the media It was also not a case where the writ petitioners had impleaded the private respondents in their representative capacity. In the writ proceedings, no leave in terms of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the principles analogous thereto had been obtained. No public notice had also been given as regard pendency of the said writ petition. In Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another- 2003 (7) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT , this Court observed: Applying a unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go-by to contextual considerations throwing to the winds the principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably to meet the situation. In short, the competent authority completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be irrational. ASHOK LENKA VERSUS RISHI DIKSHIT ORS- 2006 (4) TMI 490 - SUPREME COURT