1. Recruitment process for government posts cancelled following allegations of large-scale malpractices — Challenge to the legality and proportionality of the cancellation order. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 536
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai & Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5680-83 OF 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.19570-19573 OF 2016)
Decided on : 28-04-2017
IMPORTANT POINT
In case of glaring aberrations which provide prima facie proof of the occurrence of a large scale tampering of the examination process, examination process should be cancelled.
Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Judicial review – Courts would only examine the decision making process of the administrative authorities – Not the decision itself – Wednesbury principle. (Para 20)
(1948) 1 KB 223; 1984 3 All ER 935 (HL); (1994) 6 SCC 651; AIR 2009 SC 1204; (2010) 6 SCC 614; (1993) 1 SCC 445; (2003) 10 SCC 121 – Relied upon
(b) Service law – Recruitment examination – Purity and rationality of examination process – In case of occurrence of large scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examination process, the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel the examination. (Para 22)
(1979) 3 SCC 489; (2016) 7 SCC 615; (1994) 5 SCC 663; (2010) 6 SCC 614 – Relied upon
(c) Administration of justice – Doctrine of proportionality – Proportionality and unreasonableness – Distinction – Impugned decision not violating any fundamental freedoms of petitioners. (Para 27)
(2001) 2 SCC 386 – Relied upon
(d) Service law – Recruitment – Cancellation of entire examination process due to large scale malpractices – Innocent examinees who did not indulge in malpractices also suffering – State announcing fresh examination – Giving age relaxation to all candidates of cancelled examination – No infirmity – Article 14, Constitution of India. (Para 29)
Facts of the case:
The Appellants herein are candidates who successfully appeared in the examination conducted by the Respondents for recruitment to the post of Revenue Talati but were not appointed.
The Government cancelled the entire recruitment process on findings of huge scale illegalities and malpractices.
Petitioners’ applications and appeals thereagainst have been dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
In view of the glaring aberrations which provide prima facie proof of the occurrence of a large scale tampering of the examination process, examination process was rightly cancelled.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Cancellation without strict proof is illegal — Decision is Wednesbury unreasonable and disproportionate as only guilty candidates should have been excluded. (Para 15 )
3. State possesses authority to cancel examinations to maintain purity based on reasonable material — Administrative action not outrageous in defiance of logic or disproportionate. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. State may cancel examinations upon reasonable material indicating large-scale malpractices to protect public interest without requiring strict proof of every fact. (Para 22 , 23 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 30 )
6. Can the State cancel an entire examination process based on allegations of large-scale malpractices?
Yes, the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel examinations if there is reasonable material to indicate the process is vitiated, to protect public interest and maintain the purity of the examination process. (Para 22 , 23 )
7. Is the State required to provide strict proof of every instance of malpractice before cancelling an examination?
No, the State is not obliged to seek proof of each and every fact that vitiated the process in accordance with the rules of evidence used in civil or criminal proceedings. (Para 22 , 23 )
8. What is the test for Wednesbury unreasonableness in judicial review of administrative action?
A decision is Wednesbury unreasonable if it is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied their mind to the question could have arrived at it. (Para 18 , 24 )
9. When is the proportionality test applied versus the Wednesbury test under Article 14?
Proportionality is applied as a primary review when administrative action is challenged as discriminatory. The Wednesbury test is used as a secondary review when administrative action is challenged as arbitrary. (Para 27 )
JUDGMENT :
CHELAMESWAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are preferred against the final judgment dated 27 June 2016 of the High court of Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No. 73 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 11149 of 2015 with Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2016 in Civil Application No. 11685 of 2015 with Civil Application No.1066 of 2016 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 74 of 2016 with Special Civil Application No 11149 of 2015. The facts leading to the instant litigation are as follows:
3. The Appellants herein are candidates who successfully appeared in the examination conducted by the Respondents for recruitment to the post of Revenue Talati but were not appointed.
4. The State of Gujarat decided to create a new post of Revenue Talati, under the control of the Revenue Department. Revenue talatis are to maintain revenue records, collect revenue etc. The creation of these posts is meant to ease the burden on existing talati-cum-mantris who were under the control of the Panchayat Department, performing duties relating to maintenance of land records and various duties incidental thereto.
5. A total of 1800 posts of Revenue Talati were created by a Government Resolution dated 23.10.2008. Ordinarily recruitment to such post is carried out by Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board (GSSSB). The board was requested to do so. The board expressed its inability to undertake the task within the time frame decided by the state.
6. Given the urgency of the situation, the Revenue board of the State of Gujarat decided to undertake the recruitment process by itself. The proposal was approved by the State by a Resolution dated 4.12.2013 (for convenience GR-I) of the General Administration Department. By another GR dated 11.12.2013, the Revenue Talati Recruitment Committee (hereafter COMMITTEE) was constituted under the chairmanship of Revenue Inspection Commissioner, who is an Ex-Officio Secretary to the State of Gujarat with Collector, Ahmedabad and Collector, Gandhinagar and Joint Secretary of Revenue department as Members of the COMMITTEE, to “carry out the procedure of direct recruitment” and matters incidental thereto and subject to the various limitations imposed under the said GR. The COMMITTEE decided to avail the assistance of Gujarat Technological University (hereinafter GTU) for conducting the examination, The Recruitment Committee has resolved to hand over the procedure of setting question paper, taking examination and declaring results, thereof, to the Gujarat Technological University, and hence, for the aforesaid purpose, you are requested to send the rates chargeable for each procedure to the Department, at the earliest. – Letter of the Member Secretary, Recruitment Committee to Registrar, GTU dated 15.1.2014
7. On 15.1.2014 an advertisement for filling up of 1500 posts of Revenue Talatis was published. Performance of the candidates at an objective type written examination for 100 marks was stipulated to be the basis for selection. The examination was conducted in 2691 centres spread over 33 districts. 7,53,703 candidates appeared in the examination.
8. A day prior to the examination, i.e., 15.02.2014, a crime was registered in F.I.R. No.46 of 2014 in Sector-7 police station, Gandhinagar under sections 406, 420 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code against two persons, namely Kalyanish Mulsinh and Nileshbhai Umeshbhai Shah. The allegation is that they had collected money from some of the candidates who were to appear in the said examination by assuring them appointments.
9. However the examination process went ahead. In the process of evaluating the OMR sheets, it was noticed that a large number of OMR sheets had specific markings. On 26.05.2014 the police authorities informed the Chairman of the COMMITTEE that during interrogation of the two arrested persons, it emerged that they had advised the candidates to put a ‘b’ mark on the right side of the OMR sheet.
10. Thereafter, the entire data was sent to a forensic science la
