1. Recruitment for Group C posts — Cancellation of selection list due to mal-practice and paper leak — Challenge to cancellation upheld by Tribunal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 1406
1997(6) Supreme 106
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Hanuman Prasad & Ors.-Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Anr. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16904 of 1996
Decided on 6-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners : S.B. Sanyal, Sr. Advocate, Raj Kumar Gupta, H.P. Sharma, Rajesh, Advocates.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
If the order of cancelling the written examination came to be passed, the record should indicate the reasons, though order may not contain the reasons.
If the order of cancelling the written examination came to be passed, the record should indicate the reasons, though order may not contain the reasons.
Subject
Administrative Law - Cancellation of Selection List
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service law-Selection list of candidates for post of Ticket Collectors-List cancelled on ground that mal-practice was committed in writing examination-Cancellation challenged on ground that no reasons were given in the order-Matter had been referred to CBI for enquiry-Preliminary report submitted by CBI indicated that malpractices had been committed in examination-Order of cancellation could not be said contained no reasons-Appellant also could not be said entitled to prior opportunity. (Paras 2 to 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Competency of authority to cancel list — Absence of reasons in cancellation order — Legitimate expectation of selected candidates and requirement of prior opportunity. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. Authority may be delegated — Record indicating reasons sustains order — No vested right to appointment for selected candidates — No prior opportunity required for mass copying. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. Selected candidates possess no vested right or legitimate expectation of appointment; prior opportunity is not required for cancellation of selection lists in cases of mass copying. (Para 4 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed. (Para 5 )
6. Can a subordinate officer cancel a selection list if the General Manager is the competent authority?
Yes, provided the subordinate officer, such as a Divisional Manager, has been authorized by the competent authority to discharge those functions. (Para 2 )
7. Is an administrative order cancelling an examination invalid if the order itself does not state the reasons?
Not necessarily; while public orders should generally contain reasons, an order may be sustained if the official record indicates the reasons for the action. (Para 2 , 3 )
8. Do candidates selected by a recruitment agency have a vested right or legitimate expectation of appointment?
No, selected candidates do not acquire a vested right or legitimate expectation of appointment until they are actually appointed according to the rules. (Para 4 )
9. Is a prior opportunity for hearing required before cancelling a selection list due to mass copying?
No, prior opportunity is not required in cases of mass copying, as opposed to cases where a specific named candidate is accused of copying. (Para 4 )
ORDER
This special leave petition arises against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench made on July 15, 1996 in Original Application No. 959 of 1995. The admitted position is that for the recruitment to Group C posts, a notification was issued on July 19, 1994 inviting applications for selection of 48 Ticket Collectors in Lucknow Division in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. Out of 800 candidates who appeared in the examination, 106 candidates got place in the select list which was subsequently cancelled on the ground that mal-practice was committed in writing the examinations as the papers were leaked out earlier to the date of examination. The cancellation came to be challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order has upheld the cancellation. Thus, this special leave petition.
2. Shri Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, raised three-fold contention. Firstly, the Deputy Divisional Manager was not the competent authority to cancel the select list, the General Manager being the competent authority. We find no force in the said contention. The Divisional Manager can also be authorised by the General Manager to discharge the function of the General Manager. Therefore, he could be said to have discharged the function of cancellation of the select list. It is then contended that since the order does not indicate any reasons, it is bad in law. In support thereof, he placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors.1, in particular, paragraph 8 of the judgment. It is true that when an order is passed, be it administrative or quasi-judicial in nature, necessarily it would contain grounds or reasons for invalidating the action taken. The authorities cannot subsequently explain their actions by way of affidavit or otherwise. Therefore, this Court insisted upon the public orders made in exercise of the statutory power, should contain reasons and the order should contain the kind of action taken by them. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to substitute their actions or contents of orders by reference to any affidavits or other actions which did not find place in the order. In this case, the authorities simply cancelled the selection list. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi & Ors.2, this Court had held that if the order cancelling the examination came to be passed, the record should indicate the reason, though order may not contain the reasons as indicated in paragraphs 21 of the judgment. In that case, it was held that the order did not contain the reasons but the record indicated the same. The administrative order cancelling the examination in which mass copying was alleged, was sustained.
3. It is seen that after the allegations were made that mal-practices were committed, the matter was referred to CBI for enquiry. The CBI has submitted his preliminary report which indicated that the mal-practices have been committed in writing the examination. They need await the final report which would be to take further action against erring officers. Therefore, it is a case where the authorities have taken the decision on the basis of the report submitted by the investigating agency, containing proof in support of the allegations of mal-practice committed in writing the examination. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order of cancellation does not contain any reasons.
4. It is then contended that though the selected candidates have no vested right, they had got a legitimate expectation for appointment when they were selected for being appointed. They should be given prior opportunity and also know the reasons for cancellation. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on paragraph 8 of the judgment of this Court in Asha Kaul & Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.3. It is unexceptionable that when duly constituted se
