IMPORTANT POINT
Bihar Public Service Commission is entitled to initiate action against any candidate if the candidate is found guilty of resorting to any irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or using any other unfair means in the examination hall.

Headnote:Sevice Law-Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Service, (Recruitment) Rules, 1951-Rule 15A-Resorting to any irregular or improper means in examination hall-Answer book not written in examination centre-Answer book subsequently substituted for the one written in examination centre-Decision of Commission in cancelling answer paper of respondent held justified-Delay in noticing contumacious act at a later stage cannot be termed as illegal.
       Held : The Commission is entitled to initiate action against any candidate if the candidate is found guilty of resorting to any irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or using any other unfair means in the examination hall (clause vi) if any candidate is found guilty he may be expelled from the examination hall or the Commission may also invalidate his answer-books or may debar the said candidate either permanently or for a specified period. The Division Bench in their judgment while interpreting the above rule has observed that there was no allegation against respondent No. 1 of adoption of any unfair means in the course of examination and the Commission after two years of publication of the result initiated action against respondent No. 1. The interpretation given by the Division Bench of the rule is not correct. Clause (iii) of the Rules specifically provides that if a candidate is found guilty of submitting fabricated document or documents, which have been tampered with or as provided in Clause (vi) found to have used any other unfair means in the examination hall, he can be dealt with appropriately under the Rules. (Para 13)
       A perusal of the show cause notice issued to respondent No. 1 in Memo No. 56/P.S.C./C.C.E. dated 12.8.1985 clearly go to show that the charge against respondent No. 1 was for adoption of unfair means in the 31st Combined Competitive Examination. We have already extracted the charges against respondent No. 1. By issuing the said show-cause notice an opportunity was given to respondent No. 1 to offer his explanation with regard to the charges. The proceedings dated 22.9.1986 (annexure-2) clearly reveal that the explanation offered by respondent No. 1 dated 15.4.1986 with regard to the charges had been considered in detail by the Commission and the Commission after due consideration has decided to cancel the answer-sheet of the General Knowledge Paper and also decided to treat respondent No. 1 as debarred from the said examination. The Authorities of the Commission have, in our opinion, acted within the four corners of the rules, regulations and executive instructions. They have adhered to the rule of law. The Division Bench has characterized the entire exercise by the Commission in cancelling the respondent s examination as vitiated by illegality and procedural impropriety. We are unable to appreciate the above observation made by the Division Bench. In our opinion, the Courts can certainly examine whether the decision making process was reasonable, rationale and not arbitrary on the facts and circumstances in each case. There has been no infirmity in the decision making process by the Commission. We, therefore, hold that the impugned action initiated by the Commission in cancelling the examination of respondent No. 1 and debarring him is well-founded and calls for no interference. The grievance of respondent No. 1 that he was not allowed to see the answer-books of other candidates in the concerned subject nor the specimen signature of the invigilators of that centre were produced before the Court are shown to the first respondent. In this regard, respondent No. 1 has miserably failed to request the Division Bench to see the answer-books by themselves and also permit him to peruse the same. Such a request made by Mr. M.N. Rao before us at this distance of time cannot at all be countenanced. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.-This appeal was filed by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") against the judgment and order dated 5.12.1994 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 147 of 1988 whereby a Division Bench allowed the said appeal of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner (Vinoy Kumar Singh) and consequently set aside the judgment and order dated 28.8.1988 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and came to the conclusion that the authorities of the Commission are not authorized to take any steps after publication of the result of the examination. The Court held that it is not open to the Authorities of the Commission to issue a show-cause notice and to take any action after the conclusion of the examination unless there is any specific rule permitting the Authorities to do so. The Bench also held that no action can be taken against the candidate for committing unfair means committed by him in the course of the examination. Thus the High Court came to the conclusion that in the absence of any rules or executive instructions, the entire exercise of the Commission is vitiated by illegality and procedural impropriety. The Division Bench further came to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice have also not been properly observed inasmuch as the respondent s request to inspect and examine the answer books of other candidates and the specimen signature of the invigilator thereon was denied. The Division Bench finally came to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had himself tried to form an opinion about the alleged misconduct of the writ petitioner and hence the learned Single Judge has committed an error of law. In view of the aforesaid conclusion and findings, the Division Bench set aside the order dated 22.9.1986 of the Commission debarring respondent No. 1/writ petitioner from the examination and directed the Commission to treat the candidate/writ petitioner as a successful candidate. However, it refrained from giving any direction to the Commission for appointing the writ petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any other post as prayed for as they felt that such a direction was beyond the scope of the writ petition.

2. In order to appreciate the various contentions raised by the Commission in this appeal, it is necessary to recite the facts in relief.

3. The Commission invited applications in the prescribed proforma from eligible graduate candidates for appearing in the 31st Combined Competitive Examination conducted for filling up various Civil Posts. The written examination was to commence w.e.f. 12.2.1983. Respondent No. 1, being a graduate, applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as also for Deputy Collector in the prescribed proforma. The Commission after preliminary scrutiny and having found respondent No. 1 eligible, allotted him Roll No. 16306 and also issued him an Admit Card in order to enable him to appear in the said written examination which was to commence from 12.2.1983. Respondent No. 1 was required to appear in General Science, General Knowledge and General Hindi papers which were compulsory subjects. The result of the successful candidates was announced and published by the Commission and respondent No. 1 was one of the successful candidates. Respondent No. 1, being successful in the written examination, was called upon by the Commission to appear for an interview on 18.4.1985. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 appeared in the viva voce test on 8.4.1985. On 12.8.1985, respondent No. 1 was called upon to show cause by 30.8.1985 as he was accused of having committed unfair means in the General Knowledge Paper of the 31st Combined Competitive Examination and which the Commission after due consideration, had prima facie found correct.

"(A) The main answer-sheet as also additional

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 711

IMPORTANT POINTBihar Public Service Commission is entitled to initiate action against any candidate if the candidate is found guilty of resorting to any irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or using any other unfair means in the examination hall.

Login now and unlock premium legal research

IMPORTANT POINT
Bihar Public Service Commission is entitled to initiate action against any candidate if the candidate is found guilty of resorting to any irregular or improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or using any other unfair means in the examination hall.