IMPORTANT POINT
In all the three appeals High Court was not right either to interfere with order of State Govt. to cancel certain examinations in which unfair means were used or to give general directions not in their domain or called for.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Articles 21 and 14-1998 District Selection Committee written test in Anantpur District-Mass copying and leakage of paper-Govt. cancelled the examination-Application to Central Administrative Tribunal A.P.-Tribunal holding that the main relief to declare result has become infructuous as Government had already cancelled the exams.-High Court in writ concluded there was no need to cancel the exam-Whether High Court was right? (No).
       Held : The facts revealed above disclose not only that there was scope for mass copying and mass copying did take place in addition to leakage of question papers which was brazenly published in a newspaper and the photocopies of the question papers were available for sale at a price of Rs. 2,000/- each. These facts should be alarming enough for any Government to cancel the examinations whatever may be the position in regard to other centres. It is clear that so far as the centre at the Anantapur District is concerned, there was enough reason for the Government to cancel the examinations. We have no doubt in our mind that what has weighed with the Government is the letter of the Collector accompanied by the report of the Superintendent of Police, though unfortunately the same does not seem to have been made available to the High Court, which was the basis for making the order on 15.5.1998 cancelling the examination and holding of the fresh examination. (Para 7)
       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. Therefore, we think, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order made by the Government on 15.5.1998 in cancelling the examinations and holding fresh examination. (Para 8)
       Held finally : The appeal is allowed and the order made by the High Court in this regard shall stand set aside by dismissing the writ petition and restoring the order of the Tribunal. (Para 9)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 227-Writ petitions dealing with appointment of teachers in A.P.-High Court issued general directions relating to scheme of Tribunals Act-Whether correct? (No).
       Held : All that we need to say is, it was not proper for the High Court to have issued any of these directions, particularly directions relating to the scheme of the Act. (Para 12)
       Steps have been taken by the Government of India to bring the administration of various Tribunals under a single nodal agency and the views of the State Governments and other departments are also being gathered and majority of them are not in favour of the proposal keeping in view the unique nature of functioning of Tribunals under their control. After receipt of the views from all the different departments, the Government of India stated that they will review the matter . In these circumstances, no particular time could have been fixed by the High Court and the directions issued by it in this regard are wholly unnecessary, particularly when this Court is seized of the matter, it was wholly within its competence to monitor, supervise, control and direct the Government in this regard and it is not at all necessary for the High Court to take upon itself to issue such directions and it should have appropriately left that matter to this Court. To say the least, the High Court has engaged itself the role of a legislative body to rescue those who are in distress by adopting this procedure. Further, when this Court has explained the scheme of the enactment and expressed its views, no directions could have been issued by the High Court on all those aspects and the direction, in particular, in what manner the vacancies arising thereto should be filled up on the retirement of Shri Kuppu Rao, Member of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, was totally uncalled for. The High Court has been carried away by some kind of adventurism and virtually tried to overreach what this Court has stated which course should have been avoided at all costs. These appeals are allowed by setting aside the orders of the High Court and dismissing the writ petitions. (Para 13)
       (iii) A.P. Education Act, 1982-Sections 78 and 79-A.P. Panchayats Act, 1994-Section 169(4), 195(4) and 258-A.P. Direct Recruitment for Posts of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 1994-Rule 13(a)-Reduction of qualifying marks for selection of posts to secondary grade teachers by Govt.-High Court holding not proper without amending relevant rule-Whether correct? (No)-Directions given by High Court regarding carry forward of reservation-Not proper.
       Held : The High Court ought not to have examined the matter at the instance of the petitioners, particularly in the absence of the parties before the court whose substantial rights to hold office came to be vitally affected. (Para 19)
       Held also : There was no need for the High Court to have given any directions for future merely on the basis of hypothetical situation as to how the selection had to be made and provide for the manner in which it should be given effect to. As and when fresh selections are made, the same could be sorted out whether they are in conformity with the appropriate provisions of law and the correct reservation policy has been followed or not. For future no particular principle could be set out in a judgment of this nature where nothing had been decided. In the first place, the High Court held that the question does not arise for consideration and in the second place, the selections made are not being disturbed. Therefore, it is wholly uncalled for, for the High Court to have given directions regarding reservations. Therefore, the directions given by the High Court thereto shall stand set aside. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-

Civil Appeal No. 6461/1998 :

An original application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) by respondent No. 5 for declaration of results of 1998 District Selection Committee written test in Anantapur District, for declaration that it is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and for a direction to declare the appropriate results. The Tribunal noticed that originally examinations had been held on 19.4.1998 and 20.4.1998 in Anantapur District to select secondary school teachers mainly for Language Pandit cadre. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by an order made on 15.5.1998, after noticing certain allegations of mass copying cancelled the examination of the District Selection Committee in respect of Anantapur District and directed further action being taken in the matter. Thereafter examinations were held on 11.7.1998. Results of the same were published on 29.7.1998 and interviews were conducted on 27.8.1998. The Tribunal noticed that inasmuch as the Government had already cancelled the examinations did not consider it fit to order an enquiry into various lapses in Anantapur District and held that the main relief to declare the results had become infructuous. On that basis, the Tribunal disposed of the application. The matter was carried by way of a writ petition before the High Court.

2. The contentions raised before the High Court are that the Government had cancelled examinations in Anantapur District on the basis of newspaper reports and such issue has been raised on the floor of the Legislative Assembly; that there was no other material, much less, legally acceptable to cancel examinations; that the circumstances and the material are similar to other districts and following the analogy of Anantapur District, the Government ought to have cancelled the examinations in all the districts as they are similarly situated and in not doing so, the Government had acted with discrimination; that the Tribunal ought to have directed the publication of results in all the centres of Cuddapah, but erred in withholding the declaration of results even ignoring the report of the Secretary to the School Education.

3. The High Court found that an enquiry had been held in respect of other districts and on the basis of the enquiry concluded that there was no need to cancel the examinations en-mass, as disclosed in the letter dated 24.4.1998 sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister an enquiry report had been called for but even in the absence of such an enquiry or report, the Government could not have cancelled the examinations.

4. The stand of the appellants is that an account of several representations and complaints made by the candidates and write ups in the newspapers, the District Collector, Anantapur District ordered an enquiry to be conducted by the Superintendent of Police on 27.4.1998. On 25.4.1998, Superintendent of Police submitted a report to the Collector pointing out, inter alia, the following irregularities in the conduct of the examinations :

1. There was mass copying.

2. Staff appointed for invigilation was totally inexperienced.

3. The concerned authorities did not appoint sufficient number of invigilators at majority of examination centres.

4. Large number of Superintendents did not attend the duties on the examination day.

5. Several staff were appointed for examination duty only to assist their kith and kin.

6. There was collusion between the invigilating staff and the candidates and thereby the candidates were allowed to sit in the examination halls as they liked.

7. Proper sitting arrangement in the examination centres was not made.

8. The selection of examination centres itself was improper and that the concerned authorities have ignored those centr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 560

IMPORTANT POINTIn all the three appeals High Court was not right either to interfere with order of State Govt. to cancel certain examinations in which unfair means were used or to give general directions not in their domain or called for.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
In all the three appeals High Court was not right either to interfere with order of State Govt. to cancel certain examinations in which unfair means were used or to give general directions not in their domain or called for.