# Mohd. Irfan & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-24
- **Bench:** B. Amit Sthalekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-irfan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44233
- **Pages:** 20

## Text

_Characters 0–39,978 of 55,472. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39978 for what follows._

8 All. Mohd. Irfan & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
175
(2016) 8 ILRA 175
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

Writ A No.- 24824 Of 2016

Mohd. Irfan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners:
Anup Kumar Khare, Ashok Khare, S.N. Singh

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C.
Held

The entire selection process was vitiated by large-scale irregularities and manipulation, including:
Overwriting and tampering of interview marks,
Non-verification of documents,
Selection of ineligible candidates,
Incomplete application forms,
Absence of signatures of selection committee members.
The irregularities were systemic, widespread, and affected the entire selection, making it impossible to
segregate valid selections from invalid ones.
In such cases of mass malpractice, the authority is justified in:
Cancelling the entire selection process,
Without issuing individual show-cause notices or granting hearing.
No candidate has a vested or indefeasible right to appointment merely because their name appears in
a select list.
The decision to cancel the selection was:
Based on an inquiry report,
Supported by material evidence,
Neither arbitrary nor mala fide.
Allegations of political mala fide (MP/MLA complaint) were rejected as:
Inquiry independently established serious irregularities.
Principles of natural justice are not attracted in cases where:
The entire selection is tainted,
Cancellation is based on mass irregularities.
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited, and the Court will not interfere where:
Administrative decision is based on relevant material,
No arbitrariness is shown.
The cancellation orders dated 07.05.2016 and 13.05.2016 are valid.
The writ petition is dismissed.
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

CASE LAW CITED

Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970 (1) SCC 648)
Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh (1993) 1 SCC 154
Gurdeep Singh vs. State of J. & K. (1995 Supp (1) SCC 188)
Biswa Ranjan Sahoo vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda (1996) 5 SCC 365
Dilip Kumar Goswami vs. Central Administrative Tribunal (2001 (3) ESC All 939)
Union of India vs. O. Chakradhar (2002) 3 SCC 146
Union of India vs. Tarun K. Singh (2003) 11 SCC 768
Arvind Kumar Pipal vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. (2004 (1) ESC All 444)

(Delivered by Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav,
learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners who are 23 in number are seeking quashing of the order dated 7.5.2016
whereby the selection on contract basis for various posts under the NPCDES Programme by the
Human Resources Department has been cancelled. The petitioners are also seeking quashing of the
order dated 13.5.2016 notifying the order dated 7.5.2016 in furtherance of National Health Mission
Scheme of the Government of India and its implementation in different districts.

3. An advertisement was issued on 24.2.2016 published in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on
26.2.2016. Applications were invited for various posts. The petitioners no.1,2, 3 and 4 submitted
their applications for the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor under the National Tuberculosis
Control Programme. The petitioner no.3 submitted his application under the OBC category and the
petitioner no.4 submitted his application under the SC category. The petitioner no.5 submitted his
application for the post of Lab Technician in the general category. Petitioner no.6 submitted her
application for the post of Staff Nurse under the SC category. Petitioner nos.7 and 8 submitted their
applications for the post of Staff Nurse under the general category and OBC respectively. Petitioner
no.9 applied for the post of Lab Technician under the SC category. Petitioner no.10 submitted his
application for the post of Staff Nurse in the general category. Petitioner no.11 submitted his
application for the post of Lab Technician in the general category. Petitioner nos.12 and 13
submitted their applications for the post of Staff Nurse in general category. Petitioner no.14
submitted his application for the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC category. Petitioner no.15
submitted her application for the post of Staff Nurse under the SC category. Petitioner no.16
submitted her application for the post of District Leprosy Advisor under the general category.
Petitioner no.17 submitted her application for the post of Block Prgramme Manager under the OBC
category. Petitioner no.18 submitted her application for the post of Staff Nurse under the OBC
category. Petitioner no.19 submitted her application for the post Nutrition Care Taker under the
general category. Petitioner no.20 submitted her application for the post of Nutrition Care Taker
under the general category. Petitioner no.21 submitted his application for the post of Block Data
cum Account Assistant under the OBC category, petitioner no.22 submitted his application form
8 All. Mohd. Irfan & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
177
for the post of Para Medical Worker and petitioner no.23 submitted his application for the post of
Lab Technicion under the OBC category.

4. According to the petitioners, they possess all the requisite qualifications for the posts
against which they have applied. It is stated that a Selection Committee was constituted comprising
Chief Medical Officer, Jalaun, at Orai as President and four members namely City Magistrate,
Orai, C.M.O. Superintendent District Mahila Hospital and Additional Chief Medical Officer as
well as District Tuberculosis Decease Officer. The petitioners were called for interview and after
verification of documents they were declared successful. It is stated that earlier one Sri Ram
Ganesh was the District Magistrate, Jalaun but he was transferred and therefore he could not put his
signature on the select list. One Sandeep Kaur took over charge as the District Magistrate and put
his signature on the select list as Chairman of the Selection Committee. Thereafter the select list
was issued on 31.3.2016. It is stated that earlier the last date for joining was 31.3.2016 but since the
select list itself was published on 31.3.2016, the date of joining was extended upto 30.4.2016.
However, the petitioners were not permitted to join on their selected posts and no letter of
appointment was issued. It is alleged that one Sri Bhanu Pratap Verma, Member of Parliament and
one Sri Daya Shanker Verma, local MLA written a complaint to the District Magistrate, Orai
alleging irregularties made in the selection and claiming that no joining be given and the select list
be cancelled on the ground that some writ petition had been filed being Writ Petition No.12779 of
2016, Sant Ram vs. State of U.P. and others. On receipt of the complaint the District Magistrate
through his letter dated 7.4.2016 endorsed the same to the Additional District Magistrate to look
into the matter. In the meantime the petitioner submitted an application on 10.5.2016 requesting
that appointment letter be issued to them.

5. In paragraph 32 of the writ petition it is stated that in the select list 68 candidates have
been shown as selected but not a single candidate has been allowed to join including the petitioners.
It is stated that the Writ Petition No.12774 of 2016, Sant Ram Vs. State of U.P. and Others was
subsequently dismissed on 18.04.2016 but still no appointment letter was issued to the petitioners
and in the meantime by the impugned order dated 07.05.2016 and 13.05.2016 the entire selection as
well as the select list has been cancelled. It is stated that no reasons have been given for
cancellation of the selection and therefore, the order is cryptic and in any case it has been cancelled
on a complaint of a Member of Parliament and a local M.L.A. therefore the selection has been
cancelled on political consideration and therefore the impugned orders are tainted by malafides.
The petitioners also contend that before cancelling the selection no opportunity of hearing was
given to them

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents in which it is stated that no
doubt there was a complaint with regard to the manner in which the selection was held and select
list issued but thereafter a Committee was constituted headed by the Additional District Magistrate
(Finance and Revenue) which examined the entire matter and submitted its report on 30.04.2016. In
his report the Committee has disclosed that in the select list the marks have been manipulated and
overwritten by the Chief Medical Officer. In the marks given in the interview overwriting has been
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

done and there are other irregularities. It is further stated that the selection committee was
constituted on 05.03.2016 and comprised of;

1. Dr. Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal, C.M.O. Jalaun (President)

2. Sri P.K. Saxena, City Magistrate, Orai at Jalaun (Member)

3. Dr. Sunita Banodha, C.M.O. District Womens Hospital, Orai (Member)

4. Dr. B.M. Khair Additional C.M.O. (Member)

5. Dr. Sugreev Babu, District Tuberculosis Officer (Member)

7. It is not in dispute that the select list was published on 31.03.2016 but thereafter
considering the complaints made by local M.L.A. Sri Daya Shanker Verma and Member of
Parliament Sri Bhanu Pratap regarding irregularities in the selection an inquiry was ordered in the
matter. The allegations made in paragraph 45 and 46 of the writ petition that the select list was
cryptic and was not even pasted on the notice board has been denied in paragraph 17 of the counter
affidavit since Priti Soni, petitioner no.19, Babi Sabina, petitioner no.17, Renu Verma, petitioner
no.16, Kaushal Kishor, petitioner no.8, Devendra Singh Bhadauriya, petitioner no.5, Santosh Devi,
petitioner no.20, R.K. Sharma, petitioner no.11, Ekta Singh, petitioner no.18 have themselves
submitted an application before the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai (Annexure-14 to the writ
petition) stating that when they went to the office of the C.M.O. on 13.07.2016 they saw that the
order of cancellation dated 07.05.2016 was pasted on the notice board therefore the averments in
paragraph 45 and 46 of the writ petition are false averments.

8. A perusal of the impugned order of cancellation dated 07.05.2016 clearly mentions the
reasons for cancellation of the selection based upon the report of the enquiry committee. The
reasons may be encapsulated as under:

1. The selection did not have the approval of the erstwhile District Magistrate.

2. The photographs of the selected candidates were not verified.

3. The original tabulation sheets were tampered with by the C.M.O. and members of
the Selection Committee.

4. There was overwriting in the marks given during interview.

5. All the members of the selection committee had not signed the final result of the
interview.

6. Non verification of the documents of the selected candidates.

7.Candidates did not possess the documents regarding requisite eligibility
qualifications for the post for which they applied.

9. These irregularities were pointed out by the Member of Parliament and the local M.L.A.
upon which the Enquiry Committee was constituted.

10. Alongwith the counter affidavit the respondents have filed the result which was earlier
prepared on 14.03.2016 before the allegations and complaints started pouring in. The manipulations
in the marks awarded to the candidates by Dr. Sunita Banaudha may be summarized as under :
8 All. Mohd. Irfan & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
179

Sl. No.7, Guru Devi had obtained 2 marks which has been shown to read as 3 marks
through overwriting.

Sl.No.11, Smt. Vijay Laxmi Vajpai was also initially given 2 marks which has been
made to read as 3 marks through overwriting.

Sl.No.12, Smt. Minakshi Tiwari was given 2 marks manipulated to read as 3 marks.

Sl.No.27, Shazia Afreen has been given 6 marks but overwriting is clear.

Sl.No.32, Deepak Goswami was also given 5 marks but thereafter marked 'A'
(Absent)

Sl.No.34, Avita Sachan was given 4 marks which has been made to read as 'A'
(Absent)

Sl.No.35, Nitisha Budhauliya has been given 5 marks but there is overwriting.

Sl.No.41, Radha Katiyar was given 4 marks which has been made to read as 'A'
(Absent)

Sl.No.42, Dinesh Singh was given 4 marks which has been made to read as 5 marks
through overwriting.

Sl.No.43, Amit Kumar was given 3 marks through overwriting.

Sl.No.50, Manoj Kumar Rajpoot has been given 4 marks after scoring out 7
originally given.

Sl.No.52, Nikita Verma was given 3 marks which has made to read as 6 marks.

Sl.No.55, Jitendra Yadav has been given 6 marks through overwriting.

S.No.57, Shalini Devi 2 marks has been overwritten to read as 3 marks.

Sl.No.62, Archana Yadav there is overwriting to read as 4 marks.

Sl.No.69, Smt. Beena Khare (petitioner no.13) 7 marks has been made to read as 4
marks.

Sl.No.70, Sonam Devi Sachan 2 marks has been made to read as 3 marks by
overwriting.
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Sl.No.77, Neeta Singh, 4 marks has been made to read as 'A' (Absent)

Sl.No.78, Taj Khan, 2 marks has been made to read as 3 marks.

Sl.No.85, Nidhi Devi, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks through
overwriting.

Sl.No.88, Lata Dohre, there is overwriting in the marks 6.

Sl.No.89, Subhash Chandra, 2 marks has been made to read as 3 marks.

Sl.No.92, Sangeeta Soni, 3 marks has been made to read as 5 marks.

Sl.No.98, Archana Singh, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks.

Sl.No.100, Amit Kumar, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks.

Sl.No.106, Ramkumari Pal, 2 marks has been made to read as 5 marks.

Sl.No.108, Kumari Jyoti Katiyar, 1 mark has first been cancelled and then made to
read as 4.

Sl.No.111, Manu Pal, 4 marks has been made to read as 7 marks.

Sl.No.112, Shweta Devi, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks.

Sl.No.115, Ajeet Kumar, 2 marks has been made to read as 5 marks.

Sl.No.118, Anita Verma, 4 marks has been made to read as 'A' (Absent)

Sl.No.132, Nand Kishor Rajpoot, 1 mark has been made to read as 5 marks.

Sl.No.133, Smita Sachan, 4 marks has been made to read as 'A' (Absent)

Sl.No.134, Pinki Rani, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks.

Sl.No.141, Narendra Kumar Goswami, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks.

Sl.No.144, Bharti, 2 marks has been made to read as 3.5 marks.

Sl.No.147, Sandhya Tripathi, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks.

Sl.No.154, Divankshi Trivedi, 4 marks has been made to read as 6 marks.
8 All. Mohd. Irfan & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
181

Sl.No.161, Akansha Yadav, 1 mark has been made to read as 6 marks.

Sl.No.162, Rachna Sengar, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks.

Sl.No.165, Snehlata, 7 marks has been made to read as 02 marks.

Sl.No.167, Anuj Kumar, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks.

Sl.No.168, Sabana Fatma, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks.

Sl.No.170, Upasana Kushwaha shown 'A' (Absent) with overwriting.

Sl.No.171, Mandvi Sharma, 2 marks has been made to read as 5 marks.

Sl.No.182, Jorge S. Dix, 4 marks has been made to read as 'A' (Absent)

Sl.No.183, Nilesh, 1 mark has been made to read as 5 marks.

Sl.No.190, Arjani Devi, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks.

Sl.No.192, Swati Verma, 1 mark has been made to read as 7 marks.

Sl.No.197, Sandhya Kashyap, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks.

Sl.No.198, Samata has been given 5 marks through overwriting.

Sl. No.199, Nitin Kumar has been given 6 marks through overwriting.

Sl.No.200, Ramkant has been given 7 marks through overwriting.

Sl.No.202, Kranti Devi, 1 mark has been made to read as 4 marks.

Sl.No.205, Sunil Kumari has been given 4 marks through overwriting.

Sl.No.209, Kumari Jharna Helen James, 1 mark has been made to read as 6 marks.

Sl.No.212, Manju Lata Sahu, 5 marks has been made to read as 6 marks.

Sl.No.213, Varsha Parihar, 2 marks has been made to read as 5 marks.

11. In addition to the irregularites noted above from Annexure-CA-1 to the counter
affidavit a perusal of the report dated 30.04.2016 submitted to the District Magistrate (Annexure-2
to the counter affidavit) mentions that so far as the candidates for the post of Sick Newborn Care
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Unit Staff Nurse the Committee found that the educational testimonials/documents of the following
candidates were not verified;

1. Mamta Khan

2. Pratiksha Sharma (petitioner no.12)

3. Shiromani Vajpai

4. Jyoti Jha

5. Yashpal Singh (petitioner no.14)

6. Pallavi Sakyavar

7. Rachana Dwivedi

12. For the post of A.N.M. the educational testimonials/documents of the following
selected candidates were not verified;

1. Rinki Devi

2. Santoshi Devi

3. Bina Kumari

4. Chandravati Pal

5. Kalpana Devi

6 Sadhan

7. Kumari Chandani

8. Pratibha Sakya

13. For the post of Chaukidar/Sweeper the educational testimonials/documents of the
following selected candidates were not verified;

1. Ram Siya

2. Pradeep Kumar

14.
For the
post
of
Senior Treatment
Supervisor
(S.T.S) the educational
testimonials/documents of Mohd. Irfan (petitioner no.1) were not verified.

15. For the post of Lab Technician Blood Bank the candidates were required to have
diploma in Lab Technician as well as registeration certificate under the Central Government or the
U.P. State Medical Faculty + Six months working experience + Knowledge of Computer. Petitioner
no.5, Devendra Singh Bhadauriya's Lab Technician Diploma was not from the Central Government
or the U.P. State Medical Faculty. For the same post the educational testimonials/ documents of the
selected candidate Sri Pavnesh Gautam (petitioner no.9) were never verified.

16. For the post of Lab Attendant Blood Bank the educational requirement was High
School. For this post selected candidate Sri Ravindra Kumar Sharma's (petitioner no.11)
educational testimonials/documents were never verified.
8 All. Mohd. Irfan & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
183
17. For the post of Staff Nurse Nutrition Rehabilitation Centre the educational qualification
was required to have G.N.M. Diploma + Registration with the Medical Faculty, Lucknow but in the
case of following selected candidates there was no registered G.N.M. Certificates and their
educational testimonials were also not verified.

1. Sahnaj Bano

2. Guru Devi

3. Jeevan Lal

18. For the post of District Leprosy Adviser under N.L.E.P. Programme the requisite
educational qualification was M.B.B.S./B.A.M.S./B.H.M.S. + three years registered experience in
Health under the U.P. Medical Council with Knowledge of Computer. The candidates were
required to submit their educational testimonials alongwith their application forms. The form of Dr.
Praveen Kumar Paliwal (petitioner no.16) selected candidate was not supported with his
educational testimonials.

19. For the post of Block Data-cum-Account Assistant under B.P.M.U. the two selected
candidates Naresh Chandra, (petitioner no.21) and Sumit Kumar Yadav did not file their
educational testimonials alongwith their application forms.

20. Similarly for the post of Computer Assistant the selected candidate (petitioner no.17)
Babi Sabina's educational testimonials were never verified. She was awarded 2 marks which
through overwriting was made to read as 7.

21. For the post of Staff Nurse under the NPCDCS Programme the selected candidates
Mohan Kumar Pathak and Rubi Verma did not file their educational testimonials/documents
alongwith their application forms.

22. For the post of Data Entry Operator, Blood Bank the requisite qualification is
Graduation from a recognised University + PGDCA Diploma from a recognised Institution and one
year working experience in M.S. Office. The selected candidate for this post Sri Dhiraj Singh
Chauhan has done B.E. in Computer Science Diploma certificate of which has been filed but his
working experience has been issued from some Ram Ausadhi Bhandar, Sipri Bazar, Jhansi which
makes it a suspicious document.

23. For the 6 posts of Rehabilitation Worker under the N.P.H.C.E. Programme the
candidates were required to submit the photocopies of their educational testimonials alongwith
their application forms. None of the 6 selected candidates have submitted their educational
testimonials alongwith their application forms. The names of the 6 candidates are as under:

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Naveen Kumar Srivastava

Shyam Sunder
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Deepak Rai

Premendra

Jitendra Singh

24. In the case of Jitendra Singh his photograph is not attached with his application form
and in his application form he has not filled the date or place. The application form is also filed
incomplete.

25. For the one post of Staff Nurse under the N.P.H.C.E. Programme the requisite
eligibility qualification was G.N.M. Diploma from a recognised Institution + Registration with
Medical Faculty, Lucknow and two years of working experience. The candidate selected for this
post Smt. Kumkum Devi did not file her two years experience certificate and instead filed only a
one year experience certificate which shows that she did not have the requisite qualification for
selection.

26. From a perusal of the application forms of the selected candidates it was noticed that
large number of candidates had not affixed their photographs alongwith their application forms nor
were there any marks in the various testimonials to show that the same were cross checked with the
original testimonials and even where the marks were cross checked there was no signature of any
authority to that effect to show that the documents have been cross checked with the original
testimonials.

27. With regard to selection of Contract Care Taker for the Nutrition Rehabilitation Centre
on random checking of the applications and the marks obtained by the candidates it was noticed
that there were serious irregularities in the marks given by the Chief Medical Officer, Jalaun when
compared with the comparative chart.

28. The candidate at Sl.No.23, Smt. Priti Soni (petitioner no.19) was given only 6 marks in
the comparative chart whereas the members of the selection committee in their original sheets had
given her 8 marks.

29. The candidate at Sl.No.26, Sri Sunil Kumar Pal was given only 5 marks in the
comparative chart whereas the Chief Medical Officer, Jalaun in the original marksheet had given 4
marks.

30. The candidate at Sl.No.28, Smt. Sunita Devi was given 5 marks in the comparative
chart whereas in the original marksheet she was given only 4 marks.

31. Similarly for the post of Contract Staff Nurse the candidate at Sl.No.11, Yogendra
Kumar was given 7 marks by the Additional C.M.O. but in the original marksheet he was given
only 4 marks. Thus, it was noticed that the marks given were deliberately increased or decreased
through manipulation and overwriting.
8 All. Mohd. Irfan & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
185
32. In the selection for the post of Nutrition Counselor it was noticed that Smt. Sunita
Badhauna member of the Selection Committee, had committed overwriting in the marks awarded
to the candidates at Sl.Nos. 9, 16, 37 and 39 which brings the selection process under a cloud of
suspicion.

33. In the selection for the post of Contract Staff Nurse under the N.P.H.C.E. Programme,
Km. Kumkum (petitioner no.6) has been shown selected having secured 30 marks in the total. She
has been given 8 marks by one examiner. In the individual marksheet of the committee members
the father's name of Km.Kumkum has been mentioned as Rajendra Kumar Anuragi whereas in the
other sheets the same candidate Km. Kumkum having the same date of birth, her father's name has
been shown as Chhote Lal. By another examiner she has been given 6 marks and in both these
marksheets her name has been subsequently added by handwriting. Another examiner has recorded
her correct date of birth and father's name and given her 7 marks but her name has been added
subsequently by handwriting. Another examiner has given her 4 marks and her name has also been
added subsequently by handwriting.

34. So far as the petitioner no.7 Manish Kumar Pathak son of Virendra Kumar is
concerned, from the original records it is noticed that his working experience which was mentioned
as 1 year and 3 months in typed copy has been changed by overwriting to 2 years and 2 months. In
the individual marksheet of other examiners, Manish Kumar's working experience in the typed
copy still shows one year and 3 months.

35. So far as the petitioner no.8, Kamal Kishor is concerned, in one of the marksheets 2
marks has been made to read as 3 marks.

36. So far as Rajendra Singh son of Badam Singh is concerned, he was initially given 2
marks but by overwriting the same has been shown as 'A' (Absent).

37. Similarly one Ram Kumari Pal daughter of Laxmi Prasad for the post of Staff Nurse
N.P.C.D.C.S. was initially given 5 marks which has been scored out and she has been given 'A'
(Absent) through overwriting.

38. So far as the petitioner no.15, Renu Verma is concerned, she was initially given 2
marks which through overwriting has been made to read as 4 marks.

39. In the rejoinder affidavit it has been stated by the petitioners that in the case of some of
the petitioners who were selected there was no use of Whitener or overwriting. The averments of
the rejoinder affidavit are belied by the findings which have been recorded by the Court
hereinabove and which are borne out from the original records and overwriting is clearly
established.

40. Where the entire selection is tainted with mass irregularities and its cancellation is
imperative in such a case giving of opportunity of hearing to the individual selected candidates
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

does not arise. This principle of law was profound by the Supreme Court in 1970 (1) SCC 648, The
Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha and others.

"14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Gupta's case (supra) to which we
referred earlier. There the examination results of three candidates were cancelled, and this Court
held that they should have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. It was said that
even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons, the Committee should frame proper
regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. We do not think that that
case has any application. Surely it was not intended that where the examination as a whole was
vitiated, say by leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books or by discovery of
unfair means practised on a vast scale that an inquiry would be made giving a chance to every one
appearing at that examination to have his say? What the Court intended to lay down was that if any
particular person was to be proceeded against, he must have a proper chance to defend himself
and this did not obviate the necessity of giving an opportunity even though the number of persons
proceeded against was large. The Court was then not considering the right of an examining body
to cancel its own examination when it was satisfied that the examination was not properly
conducted or that in the conduct of the examination the majority of the examinees had not
conducted themselves as they should have. To make such decisions depend upon a full-fledged
judicial inquiry would hold up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities and
School Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the requirements of natural justice and fair
play in cases where such requirement may be said to arise, we do not want that this Court should
be understood as having stated that an inquiry with a right to representation must always precede
in every case, however different. The universities are responsible for their standards and the
conduct of examinations. The. essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is
appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students
receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at
other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the university or the
Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right
to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc. before the results are withheld or the examinations
cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was
right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require
that the university's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to
say that he should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with - a view to
ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline
if not also perjury."

41. On the question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the candidates of select list the
Supreme Court in (1993) 1 SCC 154, Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh and
others in paras 8 and 11 thereof has held as under:-

"9.Coming to the contentions of the learned counsel for respondents (selectees in the
cancelled select list) that the Chandigarh Administartion when had found no direct evidence which
could establish charges of corruption levelled against the members of the Selection Board in the
8 All. Mohd. Irfan & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
187
matter of preparation of select list of conductors for appointments as conductors in its CTU, it
should not have made an order cancelling the select list, all that could be said is, that failure on the
part of complainants to establish charges of corruption levelled against the members of the
Selection Board could not have saved the select list, if it was otherwise found to be dubious. The
select list, which was cancelled by the Chandigarh Administration was found by it to have been
prepared in unfair and injudicious manner, in that the interview marks purported to have been
awarded by the members of the Selection Board for the performance of candidates at their
interview were either inflated to push up the candidates who had got poor marks for their
educational qualifications or deflated to pull down the candidates who had got high marks for their
educational qualifications. That select list was also found to have been prepared without adopting
common eligibility criteria, for all candidates. When the said reasons formed the basis for the
Chandigarh Administration to cancel the select list of the Selection Board, the fact that charges of
corruption levelled against the members to the Selection Board in the preparation of that select list
had not been established by direct evidence produced in that regard, can make no difference."

12.If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in
the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an
indefeasible right to be appointed in such posting the absence of any specific Rule entitling him for
such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration
does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that
such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his
name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before
such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily: In the instant case,
when the Chandigarh Administration which received the complaints about the unfair and
injudicious manner in which select list of candidates for appointment as conductors in CTU was
prepared by the Selection Board constituted for the purpose, found those complaints to be well
founded on an enquiry got made in that regard, we are unable to find that the Chandigarh
Administration had acted either arbitrarily or without bona fide and valid reasons in cancelling
such dubious select list. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents as to the
sustainability of the judgment of CAT under appeal on the ground of non-affording of an
opportunity of hearing to the respondents (candidates in the select list) is a misconceived one and
is consequently rejected."

42. In 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188, Gurdeep Singh vs. State of J. & K. and others the
Supreme Court has held as under:-

"12. What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent No. 6
should be quashed. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of human
consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an
impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be
rationalised in courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters.
That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency
of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

purity of selection process itself; engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in
the last analyses embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and
impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the
court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of courts into private benevolence. This
tendency should be stopped. The selection of respondent No. 6 in the sports category was, on the
material placed before us, thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. He
would not be entitled on the basis of his marks, to a seat in general merit category. Attribution of
eligibility long after the selection process was over, in our opinion, is misuse of power. While we
have sympathy for the predicament of respondent No. 6, it should not lose sight of the fact that the
situation is the result of his own making. We think in order to uphold the purity of academic
processes, we should quash the selection and admission of respondent No. 6. We do so though,
however, reluctantly."

43. In (1996) 5 SCC 365 Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and others vs. Sushanta Kumar Dinda and
others the Supreme Court has held that in a case of mass malpractice notice to selected candidates
and opportunity of hearing is not required.

44. The judgment being reproduced in its entirety and reads as under:-

"1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of Central Administrative
Tribunal Cuttack Bench made on 10.10.1994 and 20.3. 1996 in O.A.No.137of 1993 and Review
Application No.7 of 1995 respectively. The orders disclose the alarming state of affairs regarding
lack of integrity and sincerity in the selection process, which is expected to assess merit and
recommend for appointment of competent and meritorious persons according to the list prepared
by the competent Selection Board. Reverse is the result shown in the process of selection. Pursuant
to the advertisement No.6 of 1992 for filling up of six posts of Chargemen, 'B' Grade in Mechanical
Electrical Division, the fake selection process appears to have been gone by and some persons
came to be appointed including the petitioners. When the selection was questioned, the Tribunal
had called for the record and on the perusal of the record, noted as under:

"The perusal of the Answer Book of the candidates with Roll No.001078 (Umakanta
Panigrahi) shows that though at Sl.No.3, in the first page of the answer book, his marks were
shown as '00' it was change to '20'. At Serial Number 11, there has been correction of the original
marks to 25, the original marks appearing to be 20. This is how the total was brought to 95. In
second page of the answer book though the mark given for Question No.11 B were 10, later 5 has
been added by someone to make it 15. In page No.4, after the answer 1/8 written by the candidate,
there could be seen some alternation to 0.8 by someone. The facing page or the Answer Book of the
of candidate 001235 (Sri Biswa Ranjan Sahoo) show over writing at three places. At Sl. No.2,
original marks 16 appears to have been changed to 18 and total 91 appears to have been changed
to 94. It is not possible to mark out how and why answer book 001567 of candidate Rajani Kanta
Guru was evaluated by different examiner and marks noted in pencil as also his signature as
8 All. Mohd. Irfan & Ors. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
189
apparently initials on this answer book are totally different from the initials of the other
examiner. There is practically no explanation coming forth as to how and why this examiner
was different from this paper alone. We have perused the original tabulation which reveals
that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the interview were altered and then total made of
the marks obtained in the written test as well as the interview. Even with a naked eye, it
appears that the marks obtained by the petitioner were originally 24 and the same reduced to
22 by subsequent correction and totally with this correction total was also brought down to
117 from 119. "

3. A perusal thereof would indicate the enormity of mal practices in the
selection process. The question, therefore, is: whether the principle of natural justice is
required to be followed by issuing notice to the selected persons and hearing them? It is true,
as contended by Mr. Santosh Hedge, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, that in the case of selection of an individual if his selection is not found correct
in accordance with law, necessarily, a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be
given. In a case like mass mal-practice as noted by the Tribunal, as extracted hereinbefore,
the question emerges: whether the notice was required to be issued to the persons affected
and whether they needed to be heard? Nothing would become fruitful by issuance of notice.
Fabrication would obviously either be not known or no one would come forward to bear the
brunt. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not issuing notice to the persons
who are said to have been selected and given selection and appointment. The procedures
adopted are in flagrant breach of the rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. It is needless to mention that the General Manager of the Railways should
personally conduct the enquiry and find the persons who are responsible for this malpractice and take appropriate disciplinary action against those persons and submit the result
of the report of the action to this Court expeditiously.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs".

45. In 2001 (3) ESC Allahabad 939, Dilip Kumar Goswami and others vs. Central
Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and others the Division Bench of this Court in para-7
thereof has held as under:-

"7. The decision to cancel an examination is an administrative decision and
there is very little scope of judicial review of the same unless it is wholly arbitrary. In the
present case, it cannot be said that the decision of the Railway Board was arbitrary, rather it
was based on an inquiry by the Chairman who found irregularities in the same.