CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES DISTRICT, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS.versusSURENDRA NATH PANDEY AND ORS.

                   [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 840

A CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES
    DISTRICT, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND
                            ORS.
                             v.
          SURENDRA NATH PANDEY AND ORS.
B             (Civil Appeal No. 9058 of 2011)
                       NOVEMBER 3, 2011
      [ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
                GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
c
         SERVICE LAW: Promotion - Examination for promotion
    to the post of Junior Accounts Officers - Respondents
    appeared in the examination - Their result not declared on
    the ground of cancellation of their candidature for their
D   adopting unfair means in the examination which was detected
    at the time of evaluating the papers by the examiner -
    Constitution of Committee to submit report - Committee
    observed that the observation of the examiner was correct and
    all answers were taken from guide book used by candidates
E   in the examination which were not permitted to be taken into
    the examination centre - Single Judge of the High Court held
    that the appellants had failed to establish that respondents
    were guilty of mass-copying and were, therefore, obliged to
    intimate to the respondents the marks secured by them in the
F   examination; and directed appellants to consider them for
    promotion if successful in the examination and also awarded
    adhoc promotion to tne respondents - Division Bench of the
    High Court affirmed the decision of the Single Judge and held
    that the respondent had been granted adhoc promotion which
G   wiped out all past alleged misconduct - On appeal, held: High
    Court ought not to have interfered with the decision taken by
    the appellants requiring the candidates, who appeared in the
    cancelled examination, to reappear in the subsequent
    examination, in order to qualify for regular promotion - r. 18

H                                840
 C.G.. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRA NATH 841
                        PANDEY

  of Part I of the rules deals with the situation where' acandidate   A
  is found or discovered to be using unfair means in the
  examination itself - It is only in these circumstances that the
  candidate has to be subjected to disciplinary proceeding
  which has to be conducted on the basis of the report
  submitted under r.14(4) - Since this was a case of mass-            B
  copying, which was discovered only at the time of the review
  of the answer books, r. 18 would have no relevance - Merely
  because no disciplinary proceedings were Initiated against the
  respondents, it would not be justified to hold that the
  cancellation of the result was in any manner, impermissible         c
  - The respondents were given equal opportunity to compete
  in the examination subsequent to the cancellation of their
  examination result - It is a matter of record that 42 candidates
  who were similarly placed took advantage of the order and
  appeared in the subsequent examination - They were
                                                                      0
  promoted in accordance with the rule to the next higher post
  - The respondents, however, chose not to appear in the
  examination - They cannot at this stage be permitted to
  complain that they have been treated unfairly- In view of that,
  the judgments of the High Court were not sustainable - The
. procedure adopted by the appellants cannot be said to be            E
  suffering from any such irrationality or unreasonableness,
  which would have enabled the High Court to interfere with the
  decision - Junior Accounts Officers Service Postal Wing
  (Group C) Recruitment Rules, 1977 - "· 14, 18.
                                                                      F
        ADMINISTRATIVELAW: Natural Justice - Purpose of
   - Held: 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 - The decisions taken by the G
   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 said principle is based
   on the ground of iffationa/ity and is known as Wednesbury H
   842    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A Principle - The Court can interfere with a decision, if it is so
   absurd that no reasonable authority could have taken such a
   decision - Doctrines/Principles - Wednesbury Principle.

        The respondents were employees of the appellants.
  They appeared in an examination for being promoted to
8
  Junior Accounts Officers. However, their results were not
   declared. The respondents requested for intimation of the
  marks secured by them which request was not accepted
   nor did the authorities reply to. their representation. The
C respondents filed original application before the Central
  Administrative Tribunal. By order dated 26th July, 2000,
  the Tribunal directed the appellants to puhlish the result
  of the said examination and also to dispose of their
  representation and allowed the respondents to appear in
  the examination the next year. The appellants complied
D with the order of the Tribunal holding that the
  respondent's candidature was cancelled on account of
  some irregular practices having been noticed on their
  part and on account of that, it was not permissible to
  communicate the marks obtained by the respondents in
E the said examination contemplating disciplinary
  proceedings for adopting unfair means. The respondent
  filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of the order of
  cancellation of their candidature. The Single Judge of the
  High Court held that the appellants had failed to establish
F their claim wherein the respondents were accused of
  mass copying and were, therefore, obliged to intimate to
  the respondents the marks secured by them in the
  examination; the vigilance report submitted by the
  vigilance wing which was a prerequisite for the promotion
G stated that the examination was conducted in fair and
  peaceful manner; the appellants were, therefore, directed
  to inform the respondents of the marks obtained by them
  and to consider them for promotion if successful in the
  examination and awarded ad hoc promotion to the
H respondents to the post of Junior Accounts Officer. The
 C.G.. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRA NATH 843
                        PANDEY
 Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the decision       A
 of the Single Judge and held that the respondent had
 been granted adhoc promotion and the promotion wiped
 out all past alleged misconduct. The instant appeal was
 filed challenging the order of the High Court.
                                                              B
      Allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. It was not disputed that all the respondents
   had participated in the departmental examination. The
   respondents were permitted the use of books specifically
   prescribed for the purpose of answering the question C
   paper. The books that were prescribed did not include
   the guide book which was used by all the candidates.
   Upon completion of the examination, the supervisor
   undoubtedly gave a report that the examination was held
   peacefully and in a fair manner. The said report at best D
   indicated that the examination was not disrupted by any
   untoward incident. No doubt, the use of unfair means was
   not detected in the examination centre. It was detected
   by the examiner of the answer books of Paper X. It was
·· noticed that the answers written by 66 candidates at. the E
   centre at which the respondents along with other
   candidates had taken the examination were so similar as
   to indicate that it was a case of suspected mass copying.
   The examiner, therefore, did not evaluate the answer
   books of the candidates allegedly involved in mass- F
   copying. With a view to look into the observations of the
   examiner, it was decided by the Adviser (Finance), DOT
   that the answer books of the candidates suspected to
   have indulged in mass-copying be gone through by three
   high ranking officers of the department. Therefore, a three G
   member committee was constituted to submit its report.
   The said committee examined all the 66 answer books
   through evaluated answer books which were supplied
   for comparison and review. The Committee observed that
   the observation of the examiner was correct and it was
                                                              H
    844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A an established case of mass copying; the mass copying
  was made easy because the paper was set from one
  guide book only and all answers were availab~e in the
  same book. Co-incidentally guide book was written by
  the officer stationed at Calcutta so it was presumed that
B this guide book might be readily available with
  candidates. Though guide was not authorised as a
  reference book, it seemed that the centre supervisor had
  not taken proper care and because of his negligence the
  guide book might be available in the examination hall.
C [Paras 15-17] [856-F-H; 857-A-H; 858-A-C]

       2.1. The appellants adopted a reasonable and fair
  procedure in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Jt
  cannot be said to be in breach of rules of natural justice.
  It must be remembered that rules of natural justice are not
D embodied rules. They cannot 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. In the instant case, there was
E not even a denial that the answers were taken from the
  guidebook. Mass copying was accepted on the plea that
  it was permissible to take books into the examination.
  This plea was rejected by the Expert Committee, as the
  candidates were only allowed to use the books
F prescribed in the syllabus. The guidebook used by the
  candidates was not permitted to be taken into the
  examination centre. A bonafide enquiry into the fact
  situation was conducted by a Committee of high ranking
  officers of the department. The High Court was wholly
G unjustified in interfering with the decision taken by the
  appellants in the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is
  settled beyond cavil that the decisions taken by the
  ~petent authority could be corrected provided it is .
  established that the decision is so perverse that no
H
 C.G.. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRA NATH 845
                        PANDEY
sensible person, who had applied his mind to the                 A
question to be decided could have arrived at it The said
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. The                  B
procedure adopted by the appellants cannot be said to
be suffering from any such irrationality or
unreasonableness, which would have enabled the High
Court to interfere with the decision. [Paras 18, 19, 21] [856-
E-F; 857-E-G; 859-E-H; 860-A]                                    c
     Bihar School Education Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha
1970 (1) SCC 648: 1970 (3) SCR 968; Union of India & Ors.
v. Anand Kumar Pandey & Ors. 1994(5) SCC 663: 1994 (1)
Suppl. SCR 750; 8. Ramanjini & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors.
2002(5) sec 533: 2002 (3) SCR 506 - relied on.                   D
      · 2.2. The High Court ought not to have interfered with
  the decision taken by the appellants requiring the
· candidates, who appeared in the cancelled examination,
  to reappear in the subsequent examination, in order to         E
  qualify for regular promotion. Rule 18 of Part I of the
  Junior Accounts Officers Service Postal Wing (Group C)
  Recruitment Rules, 1977 deals with the situation where
  a candidate is found or discovered to be using unfair
  means in the examination itself. It is only in these           F
  circumstances that the candidate has to be subjected to
  disciplinary proceeding which has to be conducted on
  the basis of the report submitted under Rule 14(4). Since
  this was a case of mass- copying, which was discovered
  only at the time of the review of the answer books, .Rule      G
  18 would have no relevance. Rule 14 would not, in any
  manner, improve the case of the respondents as it merely
  enables the disciplinary authority to impose major
  penalty on a candidate who is found to have used unfair
  means. Merely because no disciplinary proceedings have
                         ~·                    .   .             H
    846     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A been initiated against the respondents, it would not be a
   justification to hold that the cancellation of the result is
    in any manner, impermissible. The Division Bench was
    not justified in holding that merely because the
    respondents had been given ad-hoc promotion, the
B previous alleged misconduct stands wiped out. The
    respondents were given equal opportunity to compete in
    the examination subsequent to the cancellation of their
    examination result. It was a matter of record that 42
    candidates who were similarly placed took advantage of
C the order passed by the CAT on 26th July, 2000 and
    appeared in the subsequent examination. They were
    promoted in accordance with the rule to the next higher
  , post. The respondents, however, chose not to appear in
    the examination. They cannot at this stage be permitted
    to complain that they have been treated unfairly. In view
0
    of that, the judgment of the Single Judge and the Division
    Bench impugned were not sustainable. [Paras 23-26)
    [860-F-H; 861-A-G]

       The Board of High School & Intermediate Education
E U.P. v. Bag/eshwar Prasad 1962 3 SCR 767; Union Public
  Service Commission v. Jagannath Mishra 2009 (9) SCC 237;
  Madhyamic Shiksha Manda/, M.P. Vs. Abilash Shiksha
  Prasar Samiti 1998 (9) SCC 236; Chairman J & K State
  Board Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Ors. 2000 (3) SCC
F 59: 2000 (1) SCR 402; Chairman, All India Railway
  Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar & Ors. 2010 (6) SCC
    614: 2010 (6) SCR 291 - referred to;
                        Case Law Reference:
G         1970 (3) SCR 968      relied on            Para 18
          1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 750 relied on         Para 20
          2002 (3) SCR 506      relied on            Para 22
          1962 3 SCR 767        referred to          Para 12
H
  C.G.. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRA NATH 847
                         PANDEY
       2009 (9) sec 237          referred to .         Para 12       A
       1998 (9) sec 236          referred to           Para 12
       2000 (1) SeR 402          referred to           Para 12
       2010 (6) SCR 291          referred to           Para 12
                                                                     B
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
  9058 of 2011.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 01.09 .2009 of the High
  Court at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 807 of 2009.                       c
      Pinky Anand, Ankur Mittal, Prabal Bagchi for the
  Appellants.

      Vidyut Kumar Mukhe~ee, A. Subhashini, Ranjan K. Kali for
  the Respondents.                                                   D
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J .. 1. Leave granted.

       2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and     E
  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      F
  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.,       G
 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
                                                                     H
    848    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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
8 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F         of Re.1/- per examination per candidate .....

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

G 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.

H
C.G.. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRA NATH 849
        PANDEY [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
     6. The respondents' request for being intimated of the         A
mar~s 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       8
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.
                                                                    c
     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        D
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.                                  ·           E

      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 . F
candidature of the respondents. The learned Single Judge held
that the appellants had failed to establish their claim wherein
the respondents were accused of mass copying and were,
therefore, obliged to intimate to the respondents, the marks
secured by them in the examination. The learned counsel for
the appellants had alleged before the learned Single Judge that G
the syllabus for the examination prescribed the books allowed
to be used by the candidates for answering questions however;
the respondents had used guide bovks for answering questions
in the examination. Use of guide books was not permissible.
The Learned Single Jud,ge observed that, the allegation was H
    850     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A unfounded since the supervising officers in the examination hall
  did not prevent the respondents from using the guide books.
  Moreover, no disciplinary action was initiated against the
  respondents. On the other hand, the respondents were
  awarded ad hoc promotion to the post of Junior Accounts
B Officer; an unmarred vigilance report is a pre-requisite for the
  same. The reports submitted by the vigilance wing stated that
  the examination was conducted in a fair and peaceful manner.
  The appellants were, therefore, directed to inform the
  respondents of the marks obtained by them and to consider
c them for promotion if successful in the examination. They were
  also held entitled to the financial benefits that would have
  accrued to them since the date of adhoc promotion.

       10. The appellants aggrieved by the order and judgment
  of the learned Single Judge, filed appeal before the Division
D Bench of the Calcutta High Court vide FMA No. 807 of 2009.
  The Division Bench dismissed the appeal by affirming the
  decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench has
  observed that the appellants' contention of there being no scope
  for disciplinary action against the erring employees could not
E be accepted, especially since the respondents had been
  granted ad-hoc promotion. The Division Bench stated that it is
  well settled that promotion wipes out all past alleged
  misconduct. It was also observed that the respondent's decision
  not to appear in the examination in the subsequent year could
F not act as an estoppe/ for challenging the action of the
  appellants. Hence, the present appeal.

          11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

       12. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for
G the appellants submitted that both the learned Single Judge as
  well as the Division Bench have erred in coming to the
  conclusion that the decision for cancellation of the examination
  was in breach of rules of natural justice. She submits that this
  is a case of mass-copying; therefore, the question of giving
H opportunity of hearing to each individual candidate did not
C.G..M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRA NATH 851
       PANDEY [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
copying was discovered only because the answers given to             A
some of the questions were identical. Subsequently, it was
discovered that answers to questions in Paper X given by 66
candidates was so much similar as to indicate suspected
mass-copying. Consequently, a three member committee was
constituted to examine the issues. Upon examination of the           B
relevant material, the committee concluded that it was a case
of mass-copying. On the basis of their report, the candidature
of 66 candidates including the respondents herein was
cancelled. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the
candidates had copied the answers from guide book which was
not permissible. They were only entitled to make the use of the      C
books which was on the list of the prescribed books. It is further
submitted that undoubtedly the candidates had been given ad-
hoc promotion. However, for regular promotion, it was
necessary for the candidates to pass t~e departmental
examination. She further submits that CAT in its order dated         D
26th July, 2000 had directed the appellants to allow the
respondents and all other candidates to appear in the
examination, if they were otherwise eligible or if they wish to
appear. Taking advantage of this direction, 42 candidates, who
were similarly situated as the respondents, appeared in the          E
subsequent examination. They were duly given regular
promotion. However, the respondents did not avail of the
chance. Therefore, they can not claim promotion on regular
basis. In support of her submissions, learned senior counsel
relied on the judgments in the case of The Board of High             F
School & Intermediate Education UP. Vs, Bag/eshwpr
Prasad 1, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Jagannath
Mishra 2 , Madhyamic Shiksha Manda/, M.P. Vs. Abilash
Shiksha · Prasar Samiti3, Chairman J & K State Board
Education Vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Ors. 4, and Chairman,              G

1.   (1962 3 SCR 767)
2.   2009 (9) sec 237.
3.   1998 (9) sec 236.
4.   c2000 (3) 7 sec 59) ·                                           H
    852     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A All India Railway Recruitment Board Vs. K. Shyam Kumar &
    Ors5.
          13. Mr. Bidyut Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior counsel
    appearing for the respondents submits that the SLP does not
    involve any substantial question of law. The learned Single
B   Judge as well as the Division Bench has only redressed the
    injustice that had been done to the respondents. Learned senior
    counsel submits that this plea of mass-copying is an
    afterthought; initially when the respondents had approached the
    CAT, the appellants did not take any plea with regard to the
c   cancellation of the whole examination. The respondents only
    came to know about it when they received the speaking order.
    Learned senior counsel further submitted that during the ·
    proceeding before the learned Single Judge, the appellants did
    not produce the original record, therefore, the question would
D   arise as to 'how' and 'who' cancelled the result of the entire
    examination. It is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that the report of
    the three member departmental committee was available with
    the department on 3rd January, 2000. The same was not
    brought to the notice of the CAT when it delivered its order on
    26th July, 2000. It is further submitted that there is no provision
E   under the rules for constituting a three member committee. In
    any event, the proceedings before the committee are shrouded
    in mystery. None of the candidates was asked to appear befora
    the committee, even the examiners and/or the supervising staff
    were not called for questioning. By his letter dated 14th
F   October, 1999, DGM (Admn.) Calcutta Telephones forwarded
    the report of DE (Vigilance)/CTD to ADG (DE), New Delhi. In
    this report, it was stated that the examination was conducted
    in a fair and peaceful manner on all the three dates as per the
    report of the Officers of the Vigilance Wing. Making a reference
G   to the rules relating to the departmental examination, Part Ill of
    the rules relates to instructions for the supervising officers. Rule
    4C requires that the supervising officer should make certain
    announcements before the commencement of the examination.
H s.    (2010 (6) sec 614.
  C.G.. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. I'. SURENDRA NATH 853
          PANDEY [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

   These are that: candidates should make sure that they have no        A
   unauthorized books or ~aper with them; they should carefully
   read and follow the instn.lctions on the cover of the answer book
   as also on the question paper and they will be expelled from
   the examination hall for resorting to unfair means and subjected
   to departmental proceedings. Rule 4E provides that supervision       B
   must be effective and active. It is not sufficient for them to be.
   merely present in the examination hall. Referring to Rule 26,
   learned senior counsel ~ubmits that on conclusion ofthe
   examination after the last paper, the supervising officer is
   required to give a very comprehensive certificate in the form        c
   prescribed in the aforesaid rules. According to the learned
   senior counsel, once the certificate was issued by the
   supervising staff, a presumption would arise that the candidates
   had not used any books of reference except those authorised
   for answering papers. Learned senior. counsel further submitted      0
   that action against the departmental candidates is to be taken
   under Rule 18 contained in Part I of the Rules relating to
, departmental examination. Under this rule, there is no provision
   for cancellation of the report. Under Rule 14 of Part IV,
   disciplinary proceedings have to be initiated against the            E
   candidate for using unfair means. None of the candidates were
   proceeded against, departmentally. It is submitted that the result
   could be cancelled only after the candidate is found guilty. This
   can only be on the basis of a finding of unfair means given by
   a properly constituted committee. Without completing the
   proceeding under the aforesaid rules, 42 candidates were.            F
   permitted to take the examination on the basis of the order
   passed by the CAT on 26th July, 2000. Those candidates had
   been given regular promotion on the basis of the subsequent
   examination. The respondents have been denied the
   promotions as they have not appeared in the examination.             G
   According to the learned senior counsel, the action of the
   respondents in not permitting the respondents promotion on a
   regular basis is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
   Constitution. It is emphasised by Mr.Mukherjee that all the
 , respondents have been given ad-hoc promotion and are                 H
    854    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A continuing on the promoted post. Since the ad-hoc promotion
  can be given only with the clearance from the vigilance
  department, according to the learned senior counsel, the
  respondents are entitled to be regularized on the post on which
  they have been promoted on ad-hoc basis on numerous
B occasions. Finally, it is submitted by Mr.Mukherjee that, in fact,
  there is no conclusive proof that the respondents have indulged
  in mass copying from the guide book which had not even been
  published at the time of the examination. It is pointed out that
  the guide book was published in December, 1999 whereas the
c examination had been held on 18th, 19th & 20th of February,
  1999. According to the learned senior counsel the judgment of
  the Division Bench correctly recorded the conclusion that since
  the respondents have been given ad-hoc promotion in the next
  higher ra.nk, any past alleged misconduct is wiped out.
D         14. In reply, Ms. Pinki Anand, learned senior counsel
    reiterated that rule 18 has no application in the facts and
    circumstances of this case. There is no provision under the rules
    specifically dealing with cases of mass-copying. The rule only
    deals with the cases of individual use of unfair means. Learned
E senior counsel further submitted that the respondents have not
    pleaded either in the OA or in reply to the writ petition in the
    High Court that the cancellation of the examination was in
    breach of rules of natural justice. Even the submissions with
    regard to breach of rules of natural justice are made for the first
    time in this Court.
F
          15. We have considered the submissions made by the
    learned counsel for the parties at length. The undisputed facts
    are that all the respondents had participated in the departmental
    examination. The respondents were permitted the use of books
    specifically prescribed for the purpose of answering the
G question paper. The books that are prescribed do not include
    the guide book which was used by all the candidates. Upon
    completion of the examination, the supervisor undoubtedly gave
  · a report that the examination has been tield peacefully and in
    a fair manner.
H         16. On this basis, Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that this
C.G..M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRfd~ATH 855
       PANDEY [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

would lead to a presumption that no unfair means had been           A
used. We are unable to accept such a submission. The report
at best indicates that the examination was not disrupted by any
untoward incident. It has been rightly pointed out by Ms. Pinki
Anand that the use of unfair means was not detected in the
examination centre. It was detected by the examiner of the          B   1



answer books of Paper X. It was noticed that the answers
written by 66 candidates at the centre at which the respondents
along with other candidates had taken the examination were
so similar as to indicate that this case is a suspected mass
copying. The examiner, therefore, did not evaluate the answer       c
books of the candidates allegedly involved in mass-copying.
With a view to look into the observations of the examiner, it was
decided by the Adviser (Finance), DOT that the answer books
of the candidates suspected to have indulged in mass-copying
be gone through by three high ranking officers of the               D
department. Therefore a three member committee was
constituted to submit its report on the following points:
      (a)   Whether the observation of the examiner is correct
            that the answers written by the candidates tally word
            for word with those given in the key and therefore      E
            full marks would have to be awarded to all these
            candidates suspected to have indulged in mass-
            copying;

      (b)   Whether the observation of the examiner regarding       F
            suspected mass-copying is reasonably
            substantiated on the basis of the review of the
            answer-books; and

      (c)   In case the inference of mass-copying is not
            reasonably established, the committee should also · G
            suggest guidelines, if any, considered necessary
            for evaluating these answer-books.

    17. The aforesaid committee examined all the 66 answer
books through evaluated answer books which were supplied            H
    856     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A for comparison and review. The Committee observed as
               1
  follows:      •'


            1.    The observation of the examiner is correct. This is
                  an established case of mass copying.
B           2.     The mass copying was made easy because the
                   paper was set from one guide book only and all
                   answers were available in the same book.

            3.     Co-incidentally guide book is written by the officer
c                  stationed at Calcutta so it is presumed that this
                   guide book might be readily available with
                   candidates.

            4.     Though guide is not authorised as a reference book
                   it seems that the centre supervisor has not taken
D
                   proper care and because of his negligence the
                   guide book might be available in the examination
                   hall.

        18. We are of the considered opinion that the procedure
E adopted by the appellants can not be said to be unfair or
  arbitrary. It was a reasonable and fair procedure adopted in the
  peculiar circumstances of the case. It can not be said to be in
  breach of rules of Natural Justice. It must be remembered that'
  rules of Natural Justice are not embodied rules. They can not
F 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. We may notice here the
  observations made by this Court in the case of Bihar School
G Education Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha 6 , wherein a
  similar plea with regard to breach of rules of Natural Justice
  was examined. In this case, the appellant board had cancelled
  the examination upon detection of mass copying without
  affording the affected candidates the right to be heard.' This
H 6.      (1970 (1) sec 648).
C.G.. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N.·v. SURENDRA NATH 857
        PANDEY [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
Court rejected the plea of breach of rules of Natural Justice,        A
as follows:-
     "This is not a case of any particular individual who is being
     charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct
     ofall the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at
     a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any     B
     one individually with unfair means but to condemn the
     examination as·ineffective for the purpose it was held. Must
     the Board give an opportunity to all the candidates to
     represent their cases? We think not. It was not necessary
     for .the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if       C
     the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The
     Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that
     he could claim to defend himself. The examination was
     vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In
     these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the         D
     Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and
     examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the
     candidates had not adopted unfair means. The
     examination as a wh.ole had to go."
                                             (emphasis supplied)      E
     19. In the present case, there is not eve1-1 a denial that the
answers have been taken from the guidebook. Mass copying
is accepted on the plea that it was permissible to take books
into the examination. This plea was rejected by the Expert
Committee, as the candidates were only allowed to use the             F
books prescribed in the syllabus. The guidebook used by the
candidates was not permitted to be taken into the examination
centre. Given the fact situation in the present case, the
appellant constituted a three members Committee of high
ranking officers to enquire into the matter. Since there is no        G
provision under the rules with regard to mass. copying, the
appellants were fully justified in constituting a Committee to
enquire into the matter.
    20. We may also make a reference here to the
observations made by this Court in the case of Union of India         H
    858     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A & Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Pandey & Ors. 7 In this case, the
  Railway Recruitment Board, Patna invited c;1pplications for
  selection and recruitment of various posts of Non-technical
  Popular categories in the Eastern Railway. The selection was
  to be made on the basis of a written examination followed by
B a viva-voce test. A large number of candidates appeared in the
  written test from various centres in the city of Katihar. The
  respondents in the appeal had appeared in the written
  examination and duly qualified. They had also qualified in the
  viva-voce test and their names were included in the panel of
c selected candidates, which was published. On a complaint of
  mass copying at Centre No. 115, the Railway Authorities
  conducted an enquiry and found the complaint to be correct.
  The Railway Authorities decided to subject the 35 candidates,
  who had qualified the written test from Centre No. 115, to a
  fresh examination. The CAT set aside this decision of the
0
  Railway Authorities as being violative of rules of Natural Justice.
  It was held that a panel of selected candidates having been
  prepared and published, the same could not be cancelled
  without assigning any reason and without affording opportunity
  to the empanelled candidates. On appeal by the Union of India,
E this Court set aside the decision of the Tribunal. It was held that
  the Tribunal was wholly unjustified in interfering the order of the
  appellants, calling on the respondents to sit in the written
  examination again. In Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment,
  it is observed as follows:-
F
          "This Court has repeatedly held that the rules of natural
          justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Applicability of these
          rules depends upon the facts and circumstances relating
          to each particular given situation. Out of the total
          candidates who appeared in the written test at the Centre
G
          concerned only 35 candidates qualified the test. In that
          situation the action of the railway authorities in directing
          the 35 candidates of Centre No. 115 to appear in a fresh
          written examination virtually amounts to cancelling the
H   7.   1994 (5) sec 663).
C.G.. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRA NATH 859
        PANDEY [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
     result of the said centre. Although it would have been fair       A
     to call upon all the candidates who appeared from Centre
     No. 115 to take the written examination again but in the
     facts and circumstances of this case no fault can be found
     with the action of the railway authorities in calling upon only
     35 (empanelled candidates) to take the examination                B
     afresh. The purpose of a competitive examination is to
     select the most suitable candidates for appointment to
     public services. It is entirely different than an examination
     held by a college or university to award degrees to the
     candidates appearing at the examination. Even if a                c
     candidate is selected he may still be not appointed for a
     justifiable reason. In the present case the railway
     authorities have rightly refused to make appointments on
     the basis of the written examination wherein unfair means
     were adopted by the candidates. No candidate had been             D
     debarred or disqualified from taking the exam. To make
     sure that the deserving candidates are selected the
     respondents have been asked to go through the process
   . of written examination once again. We are of the view that
     there is no violation of the rules of natural justice in any
     manner in the facts and circumstances of this case."              E
                                            (emphasis supplied)
     21. As noticed earlier, in the present case, the appellants
had adopted a very reasonable and a fair approach. A
bonafide enquiry into the fact situation was conducted by a F
Committee of high ranking officers of ttie department. In our
opinion, the High Court was wholly unjustified in interfering with
the decision taken by. the appellants in the peculiar
circumstances of the case. It is settled beyond cavil that the
decisions taken by the competent authority could be corrected G
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, H
    860    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A   if it is so absurd that no reasonable authority could have taken
    such a decision. In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the
    appellants can not be said to be suffering from any such
    irrationality or unreasonableness, which would have enabled the
    High Court to interfere with the decision.
B        22. It is perhaps keeping in mind the aforesaid principles .
    that this· Court in the case of B. Ramanjini & Ors. Vs. State of
    A.P. & Ors. 8 , indicated that a decision taken by the competent
    authority on the basis of relevant material ought not to be lightly
    interfered with by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial
C   review. In Paragraph & of the aforesaid judgment, this Court
    observed as follows:
          "Further, even if it was not a case of mass copying or·
          leakage of question papers or such other circumstance,
          it is clear that in the conduct of the examination, a fair
D         procedure has to be adopted. Fair procedure would mean
          that the candidates taking part in the examination must
          be capable of competing with each other by fair means.
          One cannot have an advantage either by copying or by
          having a foreknow/edge of the question paper or
E         otherwise. In such matters wide latitude should be shown
          to the Government and the courts should not unduly
          interfere with the action taken by the Government which
          is in possession of the necessary information and takes
          action upon the same. The courts ought 'IOt to take the
F         action lightly and interfere with the same particularly when
          there was some material for the Government to act one
          way or the other."
                                             (emphasis supplied)
       23. In view of these observations, we are of the considered
G opinion that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the
  decision taken by the appellants requiring the candidates, who
  appeared in the cancelled examination, to reappear in the
  subsequent examination, in order to qualify for regular
  promotion.
H s. 2002 (5) sec 533.
C.G.. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRA NATH 861
        PANDEY [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

      24. We also do not find any merit in the submissions of A
 Mr.Mukherjee that all cases of unfair means have to be
 examined on the basis of Rule 18 of Part I of the rules. The
 aforesaid rule deals with the situation where a candidate is
 found or discovered to be using unfair means in the
 examination itself. It is only in these circumstances that the B
 candidate has to be subjected to disciplinary proceeding which
 has to be conducted on the basis of the report submitted under
 Rule 14(4). Since this is a case of mass- copying, which was
 discovered only at the time of the review of the answer books,
 Rule 18 would have no relevance. Rule 14 would not, in any c
 manner, improve the case of the respondents as it merely
 enables the disciplinary authority to impose major penalty on
 a candidate who is found to have used unfair means. Merely
 because no disciplinary· proceedings have been initiated
 against the respondents, it would not be a justification to hold D ·
 that the cancellation. of the result is in any manner,
 impermissible.
      25. We are also of the considered opinion that the Division
 Bench was not justified in holding that meraly because the ·
 respondents had been given ad-hoc promotion, the previous E
alleged misconduct stands wiped out. The respondents were
given equal opportunity to compete in the examination
 subsequent to the cancellation of their examination result. It is
a matter of record that 42 candidates who were similarly placed
took advantage of the order passed by the CAT on 26th July,
2000 and appeared in the subsequent examination. They have F
been promoted in accordance with the rule to the next higher
post. The respondents, however, chose not to appear in the
examination. They cannot at this stage be permitted to
complain that they have been treated unfairly.
      26. In view of the above, we are of the opinion, that the G
judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
impugned herein are not sustainable. Consequently, the appeal
is allowed and the judgments of the learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench are hereby set aside.
D.G.                                            Appeal allowed. H