2010 (4) Supreme 737
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam, K.S. Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Chairman, All India Railway Rec. Board & Anr. — Appellants
versus
K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5675-5677 of 2007
Decided on : 06-5-2010
(1984) 3 All ER 935; (1947)2 All ER 680; (1991) 1 All ER 720; (2001) 2 AC 532; (2001) 2 All ER 929; [2003] QB 1397; (2007) 4 All ER 15 (HL); (2006) 3 SCC 276; (2005) 3 All ER 435; (2001) 3 All ER 433 (HL); (2006) 11 SCC 67; (2008) 2 SCC 161; (2008) 3 SCC 273 – Relied upon
(b) Judicial Review – Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness test – The first alternative that is the decision to cancel the entire written test and to conduct a fresh written test would have been time consuming and expensive – The second option i.e. to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test was the best alternative. (Para 35)
(c) Judicial Review – Proportionality test – The decision maker has struck a correct balance in accepting the second alternative. (Para 36)
(d) Judicial Review – The decision maker can always rely upon subsequent materials to support the decision already taken when larger public interest is involved. (Para 39)
(1998) 9 SCC 236 – Relied upon
(1978) 1 SCC 405 – Distinguished
(e) Natural Justice – Service of enquiry report – Copy of the vigilance report, if at all to be served, needed be served only if any action was proposed against the individual candidates in connection with the malpractices alleged – Question does not arise where the written test conducted was vitiated by serious irregularities like mass copying, impersonation and leakage of question paper, etc and not against the conduct of few candidates. (Para 41)
(1970) 1 SCC 648 – Relied upon
(f) Service Law – Appointment – Final merit list not published – No appointment orders issued – Even successful candidates would not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. (Para 42)
(1991) 3 SCC 47; (2002) 5 SCC 533 – Relied upon
(2003) 11 SCC 768; (1994) 2 SCC 481; (1998) 4 SCC 37; (1993) 2 SCC 573; (1990) 3 SCC 157; (2003) 7 SCC 285; (2000) 9 SCC 283; (1993) Suppl.3 SCC 268; (2003) 2 SCC 673 – Referred
Facts of he case:
These cases are concerned with the validity of an order dated 04.06.2004 issued by the Railway Board directing the Railway Recruitment Board to conduct a re-test for recruitment to Group-D posts, for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written examination against which large scale irregularities were noticed.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
JUDGMENT
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. —
We are in these cases concerned with the validity of an order dated 04.06.2004 issued by the Railway Board directing the Railway Recruitment Board (in short RRB) to conduct a re-test for recruitment to Group-D posts, for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written examination against which large scale irregularities were noticed.
2. The RRB vide its employment notification 1/2003 dated 13.06.2003 invited applications for filling up Group ‘D’ posts in the South Central Railway Zone, Secunderabad. In response to the notification 10,02,909 applications were received by the RRB out of which 5,86,955 were found eligible and call letters were sent to them for appearing in the written test held at various centres from 09.11.2003 to 21.11.2003. 3,22,223 candidates appeared for the written test, out of which 2690 were selected to be called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) held on 03.02.2004 to 12.02.2004. Candidates who qualified in the PET were called for verification of original certificates from 04.04.2004 to 12.02.2004. During verification it was noticed that certain malpractices had taken place in the written examination. Meanwhile, several complaints were also received by the RRB stating that certain candidates had indulged in mass copying in some centers, including leakage of question papers and impersonation of certain candidates. Since large scale irregularities and malpractices were noticed it was decided to refer the matter to the State Vigilance Department. The Vigilance Department conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted its report which was placed before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court. Portions of the report extracted in the judgment of the High Court prima facie revealed leakage of question papers, mass copying and impersonation of candidates in the written test. Report also indicated the possibility of involvement of some employees of Railways and outsiders in the malpractices detected. Vigilance Department also recommended that the matter be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI).
3. The vigilance report and the various complaints were examined by the Railway Board and the Board after discussing the matters with the RRB gave a direction vide its letter dated 04.06.2004 to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the written examination. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-
“Board have gone into complete details of the matter in view of the nature of malpractices / irregularities involved, it has been decided that candidates obtaining minimum qualifying marks may be subjected to another written examination by conducting the same in good educational institution under tight control and supervision. This would ensure the exclusion of those, who might have secured undue advantage in the earlier examination. Thereafter, candidates may be called for PET on the basis of fresh merit list irrespective of the fact whether some of them had appeared in the PET held on February 2004”.
4. Railway Board also ordered that the cases of the candidates referred to GEQD including those found guilty during the course of investigation by the Vigilance or CBI be dealt with as per the extant rules at the time of preparation of the final panel or later stage. RRB was directed to take steps to conduct written examination and PET at the earliest. Railway Board vide its letter dated 1st September, 2004 directed the RRB to go ahead with the examination scheduled on 26.09.2004.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.04 certain candidates who had taken the first written examination filed O.A. No.975/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad questioning the decision to conduct re-test and also sought for a declaration that they are eligible to be appointed to Group ‘D’ posts in the South Central Railway Zone, Secunderabad pursuant to the selection held in the month of Febr
Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu
Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti
K. Vijayalakshmi v. Union of India
Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
N.T. Davin Katti v. Karnanataka Public Service Commission
Babita Prasad v. State of Bihar
Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India
R (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava
Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan
Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hazarilal
Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.