JUDGMENT

R. M. SAHAI, J.:- Does the rule of natural justice has no exception? Is denial of opportunity of hearing, in every circumstance, arbitrary? The State of Karnataka and the Public Service Commission, through these appeals, seek answer to these questions. They are aggrieved by directions, issued by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, to get the answer books of candidates evaluated who in the competitive examinations conducted by the Commission for the State Civil Service for categories A and B post, were guilty of writing their roll numbers not only on the front page of the answer books, in the space provided for it, but even at other places in disregard of instructions issued by the Commission. Basis for the direction was failure of the Commission to afford any opportunity to the candidates to explain their bona fide and innocence therefore it was arbitrary and it entailed grave consequences for those who were aspirants for entering into public service.

2. Power and authority of the Commission to hold examinations, regulate its working and functioning, take action against erring candidates guilty of misconduct are all provided for by the rules and instructions issued in exercise of power conferred by the statutes. The claim of the candidates that they did not vest any right in the Commission to take such action was negatived by the tribunal. But it faulted in inferring that no penalty was provided for breach of instructions requiring a candidate not to write his roll number inside the answer book. Relevant clause (1) of the Instructions to Candidates is extracted below:

"Before commencing your answers please write your register number and other particulars in the space provided above. Do not write your name or register number or sign anywhere in the answer book or on any loose sheets, such as precise sheets, maps, graph papers, etc."

It is not disputed and it was found, even by the Tribunal that it was printed on the first page of every answer book. Its observance was mandatory and its disregard was punishable is clear from instructions (xii) and (xiii) of General Instructions to the candidates which are extracted below:

"(xii) The candidates must abide by such instructions as may be specified on the cover of the answer book or any further instructions which may be given by the Supervisor/ Invigilator of the Examination.

(xiii) If the candidates fail to do so or indulge in disorderly or improper conduct, they will render themselves liable to expulsion from examination and/or such other punishment as the Commission may deem fit to impose."

Is the expression, such other punishment as the commission may deem fit to impose vague and thus arbitrary? We do not think so. Read with Cl. (xii) it presents no difficulty. It provides action for breach of that which is, clearly, specified. It cannot be characterised as vague. And then any capricious exercise of power can always be assailed. More important than this is that provisions attempting to infuse discipline in competitive examinations to be conducted by the Commission cannot be construed with same yardstick as a provision in penal statutes. Moreover the Commission did not impose any penalty on the candidates. Their examination was not cancelled nor they were debarred from taking any examination conducted by the Commission for that year or any year, in future. Their marks in papers, other than those in which they were found to have acted in disregard of instructions were declared. The only action taken was that those answer books in which roll numbers had been written inside were not subjected to evaluation. In our opinion there was nothing basically wrong in it. The Commission did not treat it as misconduct. The action could not be termed as arbitrary. Nor it was abuse of power which could be corrected by judicial review.

3. Such instructions are issued to ensure fairness in the examination. In the fast deteriorating standards of honesty and morality in the society the insistenc