http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HANUMAN PRASAD & ORS,

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      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  impugned order  has  upheld  the  cancellation. Thus, this special leave petition.      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 Hohinder Singh Gill  & Anr.  vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi &  Ors.[(1978) 1  SCC 4051,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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

should contain the kind of action taken 4 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 Vs,  K.S. Gandhi  & Ors.  [1991) 2  SCC 716], 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,      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  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 malpractice committed in writing  the examination.  It cannot,  therefore, be said that the order of cancellation does not contain any reasons.      It  is   then  contended   that  though   the  selected candidates have  no vested  right, they had got a legitimate expectation for  appointment when  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. vs.  State of Jammu  &   Kashmir  &   Ors.[(1993)  2   SCC  573].   It  is unexceptionable  that   when  duly   constituted   selection committee  makes   recommendation  for  appointment  of  the selected candidates  they candidated  do not  get any vested right or  legitimate expectation  until they  are  appointed according to  the Rules;  they have a chance to be appointed as have  been selected  by the  recruitment agency.  In that case, the  Government had  cancelled the select list without any reasons.  This Court  has laid  the above  rule in  that backdrop. The  ratio therein  has  no  application  for  the reason that after the perusal of the report submitted by the investigating agency,  the competent authority had cancelled the selection  so that  the regular  and proper  examination could be  conducted giving opportunity to everyone in a fair manner. No  prior opportunity  need be  given in the case of mass copying.  It is  not the  case where  a named candidate committed  copying.   Accordingly,  we   do  not   find  any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal.      The special leave petition is therefore, dismissed.