Back
1960 Supreme(AP) 217
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.KUMARAYYA, P.CHANDRA REDDY
P.Subbarao - Appellant
Versus
A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-02-60
The Public Service Commission has the jurisdiction to cancel the results of examinations conducted by it and to impose penalties on candidates found guilty of malpractices.
Headnote:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - JURISDICTION - CANCELLATION OF RESULTS - RULES OF PROCEDURE - NATURAL JUSTICE - MALPRACTICES - PENALTIES - POWER TO IMPOSE - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were candidates in departmental examinations conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, challenged the Commission's orders cancelling their results for alleged malpractices.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Commission had the jurisdiction to cancel the results and that the rules of procedure framed by the Commission were valid. It also held that the Commission had not violated the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry and that the penalties imposed on the petitioners were within its powers.
Issues: 1. Whether the Public Service Commission had the jurisdiction to cancel the results of the examinations? 2. Whether the rules of procedure framed by the Commission were valid? 3. Whether the Commission had violated the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry? 4. Whether the penalties imposed on the petitioners were within the powers of the Commission?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Commission had the jurisdiction to cancel the results of the examinations because: a. Article 320 of the Constitution imposes a duty on the Commission to conduct examinations and this duty implies the power to do all such acts as are necessary to carry it out effectively. b. The rules of procedure framed by the Commission, which authorized the cancellation of results for malpractices, were valid because they were traceable to Article 320 of the Constitution. c. The petitioners had agreed to the conditions of the examinations, including the possibility of their results being cancelled for malpractices, by appearing for the examinations. 2. The court held that the Commission had not violated the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry because: a. The petitioners were given notice of the charges against them and an opportunity to explain their conduct. b. The Commission was not required to disclose the source of the information on which the charges were based. c. The Commission had applied its mind to the case of each petitioner individually. 3. The court held that the penalties imposed on the petitioners were within the powers of the Commission because: a. The rules of procedure authorized the Commission to cancel the results of the examinations and to debar the petitioners from appearing for future examinations for a specified period.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 421 of 1959 and 157 of 1960, but allowed the petition of the petitioner in W.P. No. 498 of 1959 and quashed the order of the Commission cancelling his results.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise common questions of law and also present similar facts and could, therefore, be conveniently disposed of in one judgment.
( 2 ) THE petitioners seek the removal of the proceedings of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission, cancelling the results published of the examinations held in the year 1957 in the subjects which will be referred to presently. We will set out the facts in W. P. 421 of 1959 for an appraisal of the contentions involved in these petitions.
( 3 ) THE petitioner at the relevant time was working as a clerk in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenali. He joined service to 1943 in the composite State of Madras and worked in the Civil Supplies Department upto 1952 when the Department was abolished and he was retrenched. Subsequently he was absorbed in the Commercial Tax Department after the formation of the Andhra State.
( 4 ) UNDER the rules then prevailing, a clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department, in order to be promoted as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, should be below forty years of age, should put in eight years of service in the Department and should also pass examinations in the subjects prescribed therefor. As the petitioner had joined that department just a year before he has to apply to the Government for exemption from the rules regarding the minimum period of service and this request was granted. In December, 1957 he appeared for the departmental tests in (a) The Commercial taxes test (b) Account test Part I and (c) Commercial Book-keeping, held by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. The results of the ahove three tests were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 20/01/1958, 6/02/1958 and 6/03/1958. According to the results published, the petitioner was declared successful in all the three tests.
( 5 ) AFTER the publication of the results, the Commission, the first respondent in W. P. Nos. 498 of 1959 and W. P. No. 157 of 1960 and respondent in W. P. No. 421 of 1959, received reports that the examinees at the Guntur Centre indulged in mal-practices, such as copying and getting written answers from outside the examination hall, to a large extent. Thereupon, the respondent requested the Chief Examiner to submit a report alter verification of the scripts of the examinees at that centre. Accordingly the Chief Examiner scrutinised the various answer papers and found that they all tallied. He sent the report to the Commission embodying his remarks found on the comparison ot answer papers.
( 6 ) ON being satisfied that there was a prima facie case on further investigation, the Commission issued two notices in regard to subjects (a) and (b) mentioned ahove to the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him. The first notice is dated 5-8-1958 and is in the following terms : "sri P. Subha Rao, Register No. 1828 is hereby informed that there are reasons to believe that he had copied or had outside assistance in answering questions II, III, IV, V, VI and VII as the answers are similar. Though the examination is with books, it is well nigh impossible to produce identical answers especially to the practical questions. Thus copying is very much pronounced in the answers to question No. VII. He is, therefore, directed to show cause why his result which has already been published as passed should not be cancelled and why he should not be debarred from appearing for the Commissions examination and selections for a period of three years. . . . . "the notice as regards the Commercial Taxes Departmental Test is in similar terms and was issued on 5-9-1959. Some more details are given in this notice hut it is not necessary for us to recite them in this enquiry.
( 7 ) THE petitioner submitted his explanation in respect of both the subjects on 17-9-1958. After stating that he had put in seventeen years of unblemished service and having earned the good-will of all his Sup
