IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rules of Natural Justice are not embodied rules. They can not be put in a strait-jacket. The purpose of rules of Natural Justice is to ensure that the order causing civil consequences is not passed arbitrarily. It is not that in every case there must be an opportunity of oral hearing.
(2) The decision taken by the competent authority could be corrected provided it is established that the decision is so perverse that no sensible person, who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. The aforesaid principle is based on the ground of irrationality and is known as Wednesbury Principle. The Court can interfere with a decision, if it is so absurd that no reasonable authority could have taken such a decision.
(3) Service ¯ Ad hoc promotion ¯ Merely because an employee is given ad hoc promotion, his previous alleged misdeed does not stand wiped out.

Headnote:(a) Junior Account Officer Service Postal Wing (Group C) Rules, Recruitment Rules 1977 ¯ Respondents employees of the appellants appearing in examination conducted by the appellants for appointing Junior Accounts Officer ¯ In the result declared by appellants name of the respondents not appearing in lists of both successful and unsuccessful candidates ¯ Respondents’ request for being intimated of the marks obtained by them was not acceded to, nor did the authorities reply to the representation ¯ Central Administrative Tribunal on respondents’ application directed the appellants to declare result and allowed the respondents to appear in the examination next year ¯ Appellants informing the respondents that on account of the unfair means adopted by latter their candidature was cancelled and it was not possible to communicate the respondents’ marks ¯Appellants filing the writ petition before the High Court, the High Court held that the allegations of unfair practice against the respondents were unfounded, directed the appellants to inform the marks obtained by them and to consider them for promotion if successful in examination ¯ As the respondents had been given ad hoc promotion, appellants’ allegation of misconduct washed of ¯ Respondents’ decision not to appear in the examination in subsequent year could not act as act as estoppel against them for challenging the action of the appellants ¯ Hence this appeal ¯ Held, it was a case of mass copying from a ‘guide’ used by the 66 examinees, including the respondents not permitted during the course of examination ¯ Procedure adopted by the appellants fair and reasonable ¯ Appeal allowed.
        (b) Rules of Natural Justice ¯ Rules of Natural Justice are not embodied rules ¯ They can not be put in a strait-jacket ¯ The purpose of rules of Natural Justice is to ensure that the order causing civil consequences is not passed arbitrarily ¯ It is not that in every case there must be an opportunity of oral hearing. (Para 18)
        (c) Examination ¯ Mass copying ¯ Where the examining body cancels the examination as a whole upon detection of mass-copying, opportunity of hearing to affected candidates is not necessary ¯ There is no violation of he principles of natural justice. (Para 18)
        (d) Junior Accounts Officers Service Postal Wing (Group C) Recruitment ¯ Rules 1977, Part I, Rule 18 ¯ In case of mass copying, Rule 18 does not apply. (Para 25)
        e) Service ¯ Ad hoc promotion ¯ Merely because an employee is given ad hoc promotion, his previous alleged misdeed does not stand wiped out. (Para 25)
       Facts of the Case
        The respondents employees of the appellants, i.e., Department of Telecommunication within the Department of Post & Telegraph, Government of India, now renamed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, appeared in an examination for being promoted to Junior Accounts Officers. After examination their name did not appear in the list of successful/unsuccessful candidates. By a Committee of three persons appointed by the appellants they were found guilty of unfair means, as they had used Guide, a book not in the list of prescribed/permissible books, hence they were not informed about the marks obtained by them.
       Findings
        The respondents were guilty of using unfair means, using book a ‘guide’ during course of examination. It was a case of mass copying. Opportunity of hearing to the affected candidates is not necessary. Action of the appellants department was justified.

JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Kolkata dated 1st September, 2009, in F.M.A. No. 807 of 2009. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellants thereby affirming the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 18313 of 2004, directing the appellants herein, to inform the respondents about the marks obtained by them in the examination in question and grant promotion to the respondents pursuant to the result of the departmental examination.

3. The respondents are employees of the appellants, i.e., Department of Telecommunication within the Department of Post & Telegraph, Government of India, now renamed Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. They appeared in an examination for being promoted to Junior Accounts Officers. Junior Accounts Officers Service Postal Wing (Group C) Recruitment Rules, 1977 regulate recruitment and conditions of service for this post. The rules provided for a two stage departmental examination for appointment to this post.

4. The appellants conducted the aforementioned departmental examination on 20th February, 1999, 21st February, 1999 & 22nd February, 1999 for appointing Junior Accounts Officers in the Department of Telecommunication under the Ministry of Communication. The respondents appeared in the said examination; however, when the result consisting of lists featuring names of both successful and unsuccessful candidates was displayed, their names did not appear in either of the lists.

5. The respondents in order to know their result deposited Rs. 25/- each for being apprised of the marks secured by them along with a representation before the appropriate authority. The respondent’s request was in accordance with Rule 13 of the (Rules Relating to Departmental Examination, Part I General) of Post & Telegraph Manual, Volume IV. Rule 13 states:

“Communication of Marks: (a) After the result of an examination has been announced, the marks obtained in such paper by a candidate maybe communicated to him, and to him alone, on application, and on payment of a fee of Re.1/- per examination per candidate.....

(d) Application for supply of marks should be given priority at all stages.”

Thereafter, the Assistant General Manager, Recruitment & Establishment, Calcutta Telephones wrote a letter to the Assistant Director General (Departmental Examination), New Delhi on 9th February, 2000 requesting disclosure of marks obtained by the respondents in the said examination.

6. The respondents’ request for being intimated of the marks secured was not acceded to, nor did the authorities reply to the representation.

7. Thereafter, the respondents filed O.A. No. 629 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking disclosure of marks and disposal of the representation by the respondents. Vide its order dated 26th July, 2000 the tribunal directed the appellants to publish the result of the said examination, dispose off the representation and allow the respondents to appear in the examination next year.

8. The Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones complying with the order of the tribunal disposed of the respondent’s representation by means of a speaking order. It was stated therein, that the respondent’s candidature was cancelled on account of some irregular practices having been noticed on their part. It was further stated that on account of cancellation of candidature, it was not permissible to communicate the marks obtained by the respondents in the said examination contemplating disciplinary proceedings for adopting unfair means.

9. Challenging the abovementioned order passed by the Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones, the respondents filed W.P. No. 18313 of 2004 in the Calcutta High Court. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the order of cancellation of candidature of the respondents. The learned Single Judge held that the appel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1046

Cases Referred (6)