# Pramod Kumar Rai & others v. Life Insurance Co. of India & others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39646
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-07-26
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-rai-others-v-life-insurance-co-of-india-others-39646
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

1ALL] Pramod Kumar Rai & others V. Life Insurance Co. of India & others

89
eligible candidates being available within
the institution so as to maintain standards of
teaching, thus, the reference to eligible
candidates.
If
eligible
candidates
are
available, then, an appointment will be made
on an ad hoc capacity from within the
institution until a duly selected candidate is
returned from the Commission.

11. But if there be no eligible candidate
within the institution and this will need to be
placed on record, then, nothing stands in the
way of the Committee of Management to take
recourse to make a direct recruitment as an
alternate, on an ad hoc basis.

To that extent there is an error in the
judgement of the learned Judge.

12. In the present case, it would be
appropriate that the record be remitted to the
Committee of Management for its decision to
come to a conclusion whether an eligible
candidate within the institution was available
or not available, at the relevant time. If the
Committee of Management comes to the
conclusion
that
there
were no eligible
candidates available for promotion within the
institution, then, the appointment so made
shall be retained.

13. This Court is not going into the rival
merits of the candidates, whether they should
be in-house or by direct recruitment as this
matter has yet to be examined by the
Committee of Management.

The appeal is allowed. The order of the
learned Judge, dated 18 September 1995 on
the writ petition is set aside.

No order on costs.

Appeal Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7('$//$+$%$' -$1
'$7('$//$+$%$' -$1
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

3UDPRG .XPDU 5DL RWKHUV
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
/LIH
,QVXUDQFH
&RUSRUDWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
DQG
RWKHUV
5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 7 3 6LQJK
6KUL 6XGKLU $JDUZDO
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 3 3DGLD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH -XGLFLDO
5HYLHZ +LJK &RXUW FDQ QRW DFW DV DSSHOODWH
RU 5HYLVLRQDO DXWKRULW\ ± LW KDV QR FRQFHUQ
ZLWK WKH GHFLVLRQ RI WKH DXWKRULW\ EXW WR
FRQVLGHU WKH GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ SURFHVV VHULRXV
FRPSODLQW
DJDLQVW
VHOHFWLRQ
LQFOXGLQJ
EULEHU\
IDYRXULVP
±
YLJLODQFH
HQTXLU\
SHQGLQJ DJDLQVW WKH UHVSRQVLEOH DXWKRULW\ ±
GHFLVLRQ FDQFHOLQJ WKH HQWLUH VHOHFWLRQ RI WKH
FRQFHUQ
]RQH
±
+LJK
&RXUW
GHFOLQHG
WR
LQWHUIHUH
+HOG ± 3DUD DQG
,Q WKH OLJKW RI WKH DERYH GHFLVLRQV RI WKH
6XSUHPH &RXUW LQ 7DWD &HOOXODU¶V FDVH DQG
RWKHU FDVHV :H DUH RI WKH RSLQLRQ WKDW LW
FDQQRW EH KHOG WKDW WKH DXWKRULWLHV DFWHG
DUELWUDULO\ LQ WKH PDWWHU E\ FDQFHOOLQJ WKH
H[DPLQDWLRQ
,Q VXFK PDWWHUV WKLV &RXUW
VKRXOG QRW RUGLQDULO\ VXEVWLWXWH LWV VRZQ
ZLVGRP
IRU
WKDW
RI
WKH
DGPLQLVWUDWLYH
DXWKRULW\
,Q
WKH
VLPLODU
FLUFXPVWDQFHV
D
'LYLVLRQ
%HQFK RI WKLV &RXUW LQ 8QLRQ RI ,QGLD 9V
$NFKKD\ .XPDU 6LQJK $:&
UHIXVHG WR LQWHUIHUH LQ WKH FDQFHOODWLRQ RI WKH
H[DPLQDWLRQ RI VHOHFWLRQ LQ UDLOZD\V 7KLV
&RXUW UHOLHG RQ GH 6PLWK¶V -XGLFLDO 5HYLHZ RI
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH $FWLRQV DQG KDV KHOG WKDW DOO
WKDW LV UHTXLUHG E\ WKH DXWKRULW\ LV WKDW LW
VKRXOG DFW LQ JRRG IDLWK DQG LWV GHFLVLRQ
VKRXOG QRW EH LQIOXHQFHG E\ DQ\ H[WUDQHRXV
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
90
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ :H GR QRW ILQG DQ\ EDG IDLWK
LQ WKH DXWKRULW\ LQ WKH SUHVHQW FDVH QRU DQ\
H[WUDQHRXV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ
&DVH /DZ GLVFXVVHG
 -7
 83/%(&
$,5 6&
$,5 6& ±
$,5 ± 6& ±
 $// (5
$,5 6HF /

$&

By the Court

1. This Writ petition has been filed for a
writ of certiorari to quash the fax message
dated 26.7.1999 Annexure 7 to the writ
petition and for a mandamus directing the
respondents to appoint the petitioners on the
post of Apprentice Development officers after
declaring the final result of the selection held
in pursuance of the employment notice dated
25.1.1999.

We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.

2. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the
petition that as per L.I.C. circular dated
20.1.1999
recruitment
of
Apprentice
Development Officer is to be made from
certain sources which are mentioned in that
paragraph. In paragraph 4 of the petition it is
alleged that by employment notice dated
21.1.1999 issued by the Zonal Manager,
North Central Zone office, L.I.C. Kanpur
recruitment of 300 posts of Apprentice
Development Officer was notified for various
divisional offices and for Varanasi Division
the number of vacancies notified were 38.
True copy of the employment notice dated
21.1.1999 is Annexure 2 to the writ petition.
In Paragraph 5 of the petition it is alleged that
the Petitions are working as Agents in the
Respondents Corporation and satisfy the
eligibility requirements for being considered
for 50% quota meant for the Agents of the
corporation. On 25.4.1999 a written test were
held in which the petitioners also appeared.
Thereafter the result was declared in May
1999 in which the petitioners were awaiting
publication of the final result. In paragraph 14
of the petition it is alleged that the final result
with respect to selected candidates of Agra,
Aligarh,
Allahabad,
Kanpur,
Haldwani,
Lucknow
and
Meerut
Divisions
were
published in July 1999 vide Annexure 6.
However, The result was not declared for
Varanasi Division and hence writ petition no.
28914 of 1999 was filed in this Court. This
Court directed that the result should be
declared or the respondents should show
cause vide order of this Court dated
16.7.1999. In paragraph 18 of the writ petition
it is alleged that instead of showing cause the
respondents have arbitrarily issued the
impugned fax message dated 26.7.1999
cancelling the entire selection for Varanasi
Division besides three divisions and ordered
fresh selection. True copy of the fax message
is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The
petitioner relied on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Asha Kaul vs. state of
Jammu and kashmir 1993 (2) J.T. 688 and
some other decisions e.g. Ram Prasad Rai
and others vs. State of U.P and others 1995 (
2) UPLBEC 985

3. A Counter affidavit has been filed by
the respondents. In paragraph 5 of the same it
has been stated that a large number of
complaints were made by several persons
regarding the selection test complaining about
gross
irregularities
including
bribery
/
favouritism. True copy of the compliant filed
by
ten
candidates
addressed
to
the
Chairperson L.I.C. is Annexure C.A. 1 to the
counter affidavit. True copy of the compliant
made to the Executive director (Vigilance) is
Annexure C.A. 2 to the counter affidavit. True
copy of the compliant made by the L.I.C.
Agents Federation of India to the Chairperson
of the L.I.C. is Annexure C.A. 3. In
paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it is
alleged that the Chairperson of L.I.C. as well
as the Executive Director (Vigilance) took the
1ALL] Pramod Kumar Rai & others V. Life Insurance Co. of India & others

91
matter and the complaints very seriously and a
fax messages was sent to the Executive
Director to the Zonal Manager, Kanpur dated
21.5.1999 directing him to get the matter
investigated through some responsible officer
and to send the report to the Central Office at
Bombay. True copy of the fax messages
alongwith the complaint is Annexure C.A. 4
to the counter affidavit. In paragraph 10 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that an order
dated 27.5.1999 was passed by the Vigilance
Secretary,
L.I.C.
in
which
the
Senior
Divisional Manager Varanasi has been named
and it was pointed out to the Zonal Manager,
Kanpur that in the written test various
irregularities were alleged and it was directed
that an investigation be made through some
responsible officer. True copy of the order of
the Vigilance Secretary dated 27.5.1999 is
Annexure C.A. 5 to the counter affidavit. In
paragraph 11 it is stated that an order was
passed on 27.5.1999 directing for holding the
enquiry. True copy of the same is Annexure
C.A. 6. The investigation report submitted by
the regional manager dated 21.6.1999 and
25.6.1999 is Annexure C.A. 7 and C.A. 8 to
the counter affidavit. The Zonal Manager
then passed the order dated 15.7.1999 for
annulling the examination vide Annexure
C.A. 1) was issued. In paragraph 17 of the
counter affidavit it is alleged that a person
whose name is on the select list is not entitled
to be appointed. In paragraph 19 of the
counter affidavit it is stated that out of the 11
divisions in which the examination was held,
cancellation was made only for four divisions
in respect of which there were specific
complaints and enquiries. In paragraph 20 of
the counter affidavit it is alleged that a
Vigilance enquiry is pending against the
Senior
Divisional
Manager,
Varanasi
Division. In paragraph 21 it is stated that a
fresh selection is going to be held in Varanasi
Division.

Sri T.P. Singh learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that as per Annexure
C.A. 7 and C.A. 9 there was no irregularity
in the examination. He also submitted that out
of 38 posts only seven selected candidates
were relatives of officials. He has also relied
on Annexure C.A. 8 for this submission.

4. In our opinion, this is not a fit case for
interference
under
Article
226
of
the
constitution. The Authorities have come to the
conclusion
that
there
were
serious
irregularities in the examination and hence it
is not proper for this Court to interfere. In
Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh
Singh A.I.R 1993 SC 796 the Supreme Court
held that no opportunity of hearing need be
given for cancelling the examination on the
ground of irregularity. The Supreme Court
further observed that the cancellation order
cannot be vitiated on the ground that direct
evidence about the corruption charges was not
available. In the present case there appear to
have been several complaints regarding
bribery /favouritism and a vigilance enquiry is
going on against the Senior Divisional
Manager , Varanasi. In S. Dash vs. Union of
India A.I.R. 1991 SC 1991 SC 1612 the
Supreme Court held that a successful
candidates does not acquire infeasible right to
be appointed. Th only requirement is that the
State should not act in an arbitrary manner
and should ac bona fide. In the present case it
appears that a large number of complaints
have been made regarding the test for
Varanasi Division and three other divisions.
It is for the authorities to decide whether
there should be a fresh examination or not and
this Court has only limited power of judicial
review in such administrative matters. We do
not think that the authorities acted arbitrarily
in this matter. Moreover in the fresh selection
which has been ordered the petitioners can
also appear.

5. The Scope of Judicial review in
administrative matters has been discussed in
great detail by the Supreme Court in Tata
Cellular vs. Union of India A.I.R 1996 SC 11
vide paragraph 86 to 113. It has been held
therein

that
the
judicial
review
of
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
92
Administrative decisions is not concerned
with reviewing the merits of the decision but
the decision making process itself. As held by
Lord Brightman in North Wales Police vs.
Evans (1982) All ER 141:

" Judicial review, as the words imply is
not an appeal from a decision, but a review of
the, manner in which the decision was made.
Judicial Review is concerned, not with the
decision, but with the decision making
process."

6. The same view has been taken in
several other decisions also e.g. Union of
India v. G. Ganayuthan, 1997 S.C.C. (L&S)
1806. The supreme Court in Tata Cellular's
case (Supra) referred to the Wednesbury
principle of unreasonableness. The Supreme
Court referred to several decisions of British,
American and Indian Courts wherein it was
held that the words unreasonable had several
meanings. The Court should not interfere
merely because it takes a view from that of
the administrative authority, and it can
interfere only if the decision is so outrageous
in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral
standard that no sensible person who had
applied his mind to the question to be decided
could have arrived at it vide lord Diplock's
judgement in Council of Civil Service Unions
Vs. Minister for the Civil Service 1985 (I) AC
374.

7. In Associated Provincial Picture houses
limited vs. Wednesbury Corpn. (1947) 2.
ALL ER 680 the Wednesbury principle was
defined by Lord Greene in the following
manner"

"The decision of a public authority will be
liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with
by an appropriate order in judicial review
proceedings where the Court concludes that
the decision is such that no authority
properly directing itself on the relevant law
and acting reasonably could have reached
it."
8. In Tata Cellular's case the Supreme
Court also referred to the views of eminent
jurists like Schwartz who emphasized judicial
restraint in judicial review in administrative
matter, since judges were not experts. The
court will only interfere if the authority acts
unfairly and in violation of law. If the
decision making body is influenced by
considerations which ought not influence it, or
fails to take into account matters which it
ought to take into account, the Court will
interfere. Similarly, if the decision making
body comes to its decision on no evidence or
comes to finding so unreasonable that no
reasonable person would have come to it the
court can interfere. However, the court should
not substitute its judgement for the judgement
of the administrative authority unless that
judgement is wholly perverse. As observed by
Prof. Wade in his ' Administrative Law'.
"The point to note is that a thing is not
unreasonable in the legal sense merely
because the court thinks it is unwise. The
administrative test of reasonableness is not
the standard of a reasonable man in Tort
Law."

9. In the light of the above decisions of
the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular's case and
other cases we are of the opinion that it cannot
be held that the authorities acted arbitrarily in
the matter by cancelling the examination. In
such matters this court should not ordinarily
substitute its sown wisdom for that of the
administrative authority.

10. In similar circumstances a Division
Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs.
Akchhay Kumar Singh 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3564
refused to interfere in the cancellation of the
examination of selection in the railways. This
Court relied on de Smith's judicial Review of
Administrative Actions and had held that all
that is required by he authority is that it
should act in good faith and its decision
should not be influenced by any extraneous
consideration. We do not find any bad faith in
1ALL] Radhey Shyam Pandey V. The State of U.P. another

93
 the authority in the present case, nor any
extraneous consideration.

Hence there is no force in this petition
and it is dismissed accordingly.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0.$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( '5&+$8'+$5< -
7+( +21·%/( '5&+$8'+$5< -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DGKH\ 6K\DP 3DQGH\
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6&7HZDUL
'U5DP 6KDQNHU 'ZLYHGL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 6WD\ RI
'HSDUWPHQWDO 3URFHHGLQJ &ULPLQDO &DVH LV
JRLQJ RQ WKH VDPH IDFWV VHULRXV FKDUJHV
DERXW
HPEH]]OHPHQW
RI
5V

RIIHQFH RI PXUGHU LV SHUVRQDPH ZKLOH WKH
RIIHQFH RI HPEH]]OHPHQW HIIHFW WKH LQWHUHVW
RI FRPPRQ SHRSOH RI VRFLHW\ 1R UHDVRQ
GLVFORVHG
LQ
'HSDUWPHQWDO
(QTXLU\
VKDOO
SUHMXGLFH WKH WUDLO RI FULPLQDO FDVH ERWK
SURFHHGLQJ PD\ JR RQ VLPXOWDQHRXVO\
+HOG
,Q RXU RSLQLRQ LQ WKH SUHVHQW FDVH ZKHQ
WKHUH
DUH
JUDYH
FKDUJHV
DJDLQVW
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV RI HPEH]]OLQJ
KXJH DPRXQW RI SXEOLF IXQGV WKH GLVFLSOLQDU\
SURFHHGLQJV VKRXOG QRW EH VWD\HG ,Q RXU
RSLQLRQ LQ GHFLGLQJ ZKHWKHU WR VWD\ WKH
GHSDUWPHQWDO SURFHHGLQJV WKH QDWXUH RI WKH
FKDUJHV KDV WR EH FDUHIXOO\ +RZHYHU WKHUH
DUH GLIIHUHQW NLQGV RI VHULRXV FKDUJHV DQG
WKH VDPH FRXUVH RI DFWLRQ FDQQRW EH IROORZHG
IRU DOO WKHP 7KH FKDUJH RI PXUGHU LV D
VHULRXV FKDUJH EXW VR LV WKH FKDUJH RI
HPEH]]OHPHQW RI KXJH DPRXQW RI SXEOLF
IXQGV ,Q RXU RSLQLRQ ZKLOH WKHUH VKRXOG EH
VWD\ LQ WKH GHSDUWPHQWDO SURFHHGLQJ WLOO WKH
SHQGHQF\
RI
WKH
FULPLQDO
FKDUJH
LQ
WKH
IRUPHU
FDVH ZKLOH NHHSLQJ WKH DFFXVHG
XQGHU VXVSHQVLRQ WKHUH VKRXOG EH QR VWD\
RI GHSDUWPHQWDO SURFHHGLQJ LQ WKH OHWWHU
FDVH ,Q RXU RSLQLRQ WKH REVHUYDWLRQ RI WKH
6XSUHPH
&RXUW
LQ
FHUWDLQ
GHFLVLRQV
WKDW
ZKHUH
WKH
FULPLQDO
SURFHHGLQJ
DQG
GHSDUWPHQWDO SURFHHGLQJ DUH JURXQGHG XSRQ
WKH VDPH VHW RI IDFWV DEVROXWH UXOH
,Q WKH SUHVHQW FDVH DV DOUHDG\ PHQWLRQHG
DERYH
WKHUH
DUH
DOOHJDWLRQV
UHJDUGLQJ
HPEH]]OHPHQW RI KXJH DPRXQW RI SXEOLF
IXQGV E\ WKH SHWLWLRQHU DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV $
SHUXVDO RI WKH FKDUJH VKHHW ZKLFK LV DOPRVW
 SDJHV ORQJ DQG FRQWDLQV DV PDQ\ DV
FKDUJHV VKRZV WKDW VHULRXV DOOHJDWLRQV RI
KXJH
ILQDQFLDO
HPEH]]OHPHQW
DQG
PLVDSSURSULDWLRQ RI SXEOLF IXQGV KDYH EHHQ
PDGH
DJDLQVW
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
DQG
KLV
DVVRFLDWHV ,Q 6WDWH RI 5DMVWKDQ 9HUVXV %.
0HHQD
DOVR
WKHUH
ZHUH
JUDYH
FKDUJHV
SHUWDLQLQJ
WR
PLVDSSURSULDWLRQ
RI
KXJH
DPRXQW RI SXEOLF IXQGV DQG WKLV ZDV D IDFWRU
ZKLFK
WKH
6XSUHPH
&RXUW
WRRN
LQWR
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ
ZKLOH
UHIXVLQJ
WR
VWD\ WKH
GHSDUWPHQWDO SURFHHGLQJ SDUD
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 (6&
$,5 6&
$,5 6&
$,5 6&
$,5 6&

By the Court

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. The petitioner was appointed as a
Junior Engineer in the Rural Engineering
Services of the U.P. Government and was
promoted
as
Assistant
Engineer
and
subsequently given charge of Executive
Engineer from 14.7.1997. He was placed
under
suspension
by
the
order
dated
22.12.1998 on grave charges of financial
irregularities alongwith others. An F.I.R. was
also filed against him and others at police
station, Kotwali, Ballia on 19.2.1998 vide
Annexure1 to the petition. The petitioner has
been charged for embezzlement of an amount
of Rs. 34,98,622/-. True copy of the F.I.R. is
Annexure 2 to the petition. True copy of the
suspension
order
dated
22.12.1998
is