[2010] 6 S.C.R. 291 .

i I I

CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA RAILW~Y R~.CT. BOARD & ANR.

A . v.'

K. SHYAM KUMAR.& ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos,. 5~?5-5677 of 2007)

~' ..... -

. ~~"'(;;.6; 201 O_ .

[AFTAB ALAM AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]-'

Service Law- Recruftmen_t drive -: Malpractice in the written examination came to notice after preparation of select . list - Vigilance report revealed leakage of question papers, ' C mass copying and impersonation of candidates - Matter a/so referred to CBI - Aµthorities directing re-test, of candidates ' who had obtained minim[Jjn qualifying marks in the written test

f' :.,....- '. • " '.

- Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the order for re-test

- In writ petition, High Court applying principle of wednesbury, D setting aside the order of re-test and directing appointment of all the candidates excepithose against whom there was a/legation of impersonation - On' appeal, held: The High , Court wrongly applied the prinCiple of Wednesbury and misdirected itself in rejecting the decision of re-test - Applying E the test of wednesbury as well as proportionality test, deCision of the authorities, in thefacts of the case was fair, reasonable,· balanced and harmonious - Candidates challenging the: retest have no legal right to appointment,' as final merit list was not published - Doctrines I Principles - Doctrine of F proportionality - Principle 'of wednesbury.

Administrative Law:

 .. <· Judicial Review. - Scope of:- Held: The judicial review can be prinf!ipally on the basis of illegality, procedural, G impropriety arid irrationality. ·

Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness and Doctrine of proportionality "'- Applicability of - Discussed. . \ ,, . 291

/~

SUPREME COURT REP<?BTS


A Principle of natural justice - Recruitment test - Vigilance report revealing irregularities like mass copying, impersonation and leakage of question paper - Cancellation of test and direction for re-test - Non-furnishing of vigilance report - Held: Non-supply of the report was not illegal as the B question in the instant case was on a larger canvas - No action was proposed against individual candidate.

Practice and Procedure - Subsequent event - Consideration of - Held: Where larger public interest is C involved, subsequent events can be looked into to examine

validitY of an order.

In a recruitment drive for filling up Group D posts, appellant selected 2690 candidates. At the time of verification of their original documents, it came to their D notice that certain malpractices had taken place in the written examination. Several complaints were also received in this regard. The matter was referred to State Vigilance department. Vigilance report revealed leakage of question paper, mass copying and impersonation :-, f E candidates in the written examination. Te report also

indicated possibility of involvement of some employees of the department and outsiders in the malpractices detected. It recommended the matter to be referred to CBI.

The Railway Board after examining the vigilance F report, by order dated 04.06.2004 directed a re-test for the candidates, who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the written test.

Certain candidates, who had taken the first written G test, filed application before Central Administrative Tribunal questioning the order to coduct re-test and sought declaration that they were eligible to be appointed to Group D posts pursuant to the selection already made.

The Tribunal found no irregularity in the decision taken H by the Board in re-conducting the test.

SHYAM KUMAR

Writ petition was preferred against the order of the A Tribunal. High Court rejected the contentions that the order was politically motivated and ma/a fide and applying Wednesburry's principle of unreasonableness, held that the decision of the Board was illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court directed the Board to finalize B the selection on the basis of the first written test and to issue appointment orders to all the candidates except the 62 candidates against whom there were allegations of impersonation. Hence the present appeals.

Allowing the appeals, the Court c

HELD: 1.1. Judicial review conventionally is concerned with the question of jurisdiction and natural justice and the court is not much concerned with the merits of the decision but how the decision was reached.

D The basis of judicial review could be highlighted under three principal heads, namely, illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality. Illegality as a ground of judicial review means that the decision maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision E making powers and must give effect to it. Grounds such as acting ultra vires, errors of law and/or fact, onerous conditions, improper purpose, relevant and irrelevant factors, acting in bad faith, fettering discretion, unauthorized delegation, failure to act etc., fall under the F heading "illegality". Procedural impropriety may be due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedures such as breach of natural justice, such as audi a/teram partem, absence of bias, the duty to act fairly, legitimate expectations, failure to give reasons etc. [Para 16] [307- G

G-H; 308-A-C]

1.2. To say that Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness has been replaced by doctrine of proportionality, would be an over-statement of the English Administrative Law. Wednesbury principle of H

A unreasonableness has not been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality though the proportionality test is being applied more and more when violation of human rights is alleged - Wednesbury applies to a decision which is so reprehensible in its defiance of logic or of accepted B moral or ethical standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the issue to be decided could have arrived at it. Proportionality as a legal test is capable of being more precise and fastidious than a reasonableness test as well as requiring a more intrusive c review of a decision made by a public authority which requires the courts to 'assess the balance or equation' struck by the decision maker. Proportionality test in some jurisdictions is also described as the "least injurious

means" or "minimal impairment" test so as to safeguard

0 fundamental rights of citizens and to ensure a fair balance between individual rights and public interest.

There has been an overlapping of all these tests in its content and structure, it is difficult to compartmentalize or lay down a straight jacket formula and to say that E Wednesbury has met with its death knell is too tall a statement. The current trend seems to favour proportionality test but Wednesbury has not met with its judicial burial and a State burial, with full honours is surely not to happen in the near future. [Paras 27, 28 29 F and 30] [312-G-H; 313-A-H; 314-A]

State of U: P. v. Shea Shanker Lal Srivastava and Ors.

(2006) 3 SCC 276; Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan

(2006) 11 SCC 67; Jitendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 161; State of Madhya G Pradesh and Ors. v. Hazarilal (2008) 3 SCC 273, dissented from.

1.3. Proportionality, requires the court to judge whether action taken was really needed as. well as H whether it was within the range of courses of action

CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA RAILWAY RECT. BOARD v. K. 295

SHYAM KUMAR

which could reasonably be followed. Proportionality is A more concerned with the aims and intention of the aecision-maker and whether the decision-maker has achieved more or less the correct balance or equilibrium.

Courts entrusted with the task of judicial review have to examine whether decision taken by the authority is B proportionate, i.e. well balanced and harmonious, to this extent court may indulge in a merit review and if the court finds that the decision is proportionate, it seldom interferes with the decision taken and if it finds that the decision is disproportionate i.e. if the court feels that it is . c not well balanced or harmonious and does not stand to reason it may tend to interfere. [Para 31) [314-B-D]

1.4. Courts have to develop an indefeasible and principled approach to proportionality till that is done, there will always be an overlapping between the D traditional grounds of review and the principle of proportionality and the cases would continue to be decided in the same manner whichever principle is adopted. Proportionality as the word indicates has reference to variables or comparison, it enables the court E to apply the principle with various degrees of intensity and offers a potentially deeper inquiry into the reasons, projected by the decision maker. [Para 33) [314-G~H; 314- A]

Union of India v. Tarun K. Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 768; State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481; K. . Vijayalakshmi vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 37; Asha Kaul

vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1993) 2 SCC 573; N. T.

Davin Katti vs. Karnanataka Public Service Commission G

(1990) 3 SCC 157; Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U. (2003) 7 SCC 285; Munna Roy vs: Union of India (2000) 9 SCC 283; Babita Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1993) Suppl.3 SCC 268;

Onkar Lal Bajaj vs. Union of lfJdia,(2003) 2 SCC 673, referred to. "?' H

A Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v.

Wednesbury Corporation (1947)2 All ER 680; R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind (1991) 1 All ER 720; R (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) 2 AC 532 ; Council of Civil Service B Unions vs. Minister of State for Civil Service 1984 (3) All ER 935; R. (Alconbury Development Limited) v. Secretary of

State for the Environment, Transporl and the Regions (2001) 2 All ER 929; R. (Association of British Civilian Internees: Far East Region) v. Secretary of State for Defence 2003 QB 1397; c Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department 2007

(4) ALL ER 15 (HL) ; Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Deparlment (2005) 3 All ER 435; R. v. Secretary of State of the Home Department, ex parle Daly (2001) 3 All ER 433 (HL), referred to.

D Administrative Law by HWR Wade and CF Forsyth, 9th Edition. (2004) pages 371-372 and 10th Edition (2009) Textbook on Administrative Law by Leyland and Anthony, 5th Edition OUP 2005 p. 331, referred to.

E 2.1. Report of the Vigilance has prima facie established that the allegations of leakage of question papers, large scale impersonation of candidates, mass copying etc. was true. Possibility of the involvement of the staff of Railways and outsiders was also not ruled out F by the Vigilance. In such circumstances, the High Court

concluded that there is no illegality in going ahead with the recruitment process on the basis of the first written test. The Railway Board had three alternatives viz., (1) to

cancel the entire written test, and to conduct a fresh G written test inviting applications afresh; (2) to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test; and (3) to go ahead with the first written test (as suggested by the High Court), confining the investigation to 62 candidates against whom there were serious allegations of H

CHAIRMAN,-ALL INDIA-RAILWAY l{ECT: BOARD v. K. 297

SHYAM KUMAR

impersonation. The High Court applying the Wednesbury A principle accepted the last alternative by rejecting the decision by the Railway Board to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test. The High Court has wrongly applied the above principle and misdirected itself in B directing the Board to accept the third alternative. [Paras 14 and 15) [307-B-G]

2.2. When the test of proportionality is applied and in view of the three alternatives, the decision maker has C struck a correct balance in accepting the second alternative. First alternative was not accepted not only because such a process was time consuming and expensive, but nobody favoured that option, and even the candidates who had approached the court were more in favour of the second alternative. Applying the D proportionality test also, the Board has struck the correct

balance in adopting the second alternative which was well balanced and harmonious. Applying the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness as well as the proportionality test, the decision taken by the Board in the E facts and circumstances of the instnat case was fair, reasonable, well balanced and harmonious. By accepting the third alternative, the High Court was perpetuating the illegality since there were serious allegations of leakage of question papers, large scale of impersonation by F candidates, mass copying in the first written test. [Paras 36 and 37) [316-C-E]

2.3. The High Court was in error in holding that the materials available relating to leakage of questio11 papers G was limited and had no reasonable nexus to the alleged

large scale irregularity. Even a minute leakage of question paper would be sufficient to besmirch the written test and to go for a re-test so as to achieve the ultimate object of fair selection. [Para 43) [319-C) H

A 2.4. The respondents have also no legal right to insist that they should be appointed to Group 'D' posts. Final merit list was never published. No appointment orders were issued to the candidates. Even if a number of vacancies were notified for appointment and adequate B number of candidates were found successful, they would not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. [Para 42) [318-H; 319-A]

Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47; B.

C Ramanjini and Ors. v. State of A.P. and Ors. (2002). 5 SCC

533, relied on.

3. The finding recorded by the High Court that nons upply of the copy of the Vigilance Report to the candidates was a legal infirmity, cannot be sustained. The D reasoning of the High Court that the copy of the Vigilance

Report should have been made available to the candidates at least when the matters came up for hearing was also wrong. Copy of the report, if at all to be served, need be served only if any action is proposed against the E individual candidates in connection with the malpractices alleged. In the instant case the question here lies on a larger canvas as to whether the written test conducted was vitiated by serious irregularities like mass copying, impersonation and leakage of question paper, etc. and F not against the conduct of few candidates. [Paras 40 and

41) [317-E-G; 318-G]

Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Ors., 1970 (1) sec 648, relied on.

4. The High Court has also committed a grave error in taking the view that the order of the Board could be judged only on the basis of the reasons stated in the impugned order based on the report of vigilance and not on the subsequent materials furnished by the CBI. The H decision maker can always rely upon subsequent

SHYAM KUMAR

materials to support the decision already taken, when A larger public interest is involved. Where larger public interest is involved and in such situations, additional grounds can be looked into to examine the validity of an order. [Paras 38 and 39] [316-H; 317-A-D]

Madhyamic Shiksha Manda/, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha B

Prasar Samiti and Ors. (1998) 9 SCC 236, relied on.

Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 405, held inapplicable. c

Case Law Reference:

(2003) 11 sec 768 referred to Para 10

(1994) 2 sec 481 referred to Para 10

(1998) 4 sec 37 referred to Para 11

(1993) 2 sec 573 referred to Para 11

(1990) 3 sec 157 referred to Para 11

c2003) 1 sec 285 referred to Para 11 E

(2000) 9 sec 283 referred to Para 11

(1993) Suppl.3 sec 268 referred to Para 11

(2003) 2 sec 673 referred to Para 11 F 1984 (3) All ER 935 referred to.

Para 16

_(1947)2 All ER 680 referred to.

Para 17

(1991) 1 All ER 720 referred to.

Para 18

(2001) 2 AC 532 referred to.

Para 18 G

(2001) 2 J\11 ER 929 referred to.

Para 20

2003 QB 1397 referred to.

Para 21

2007 (4) ALL ER 15 (HL) referred to.

Para 23

(2006) 3 sec 276 dissented.

Para 25

(2005) 3 All ER 435 referred to.

Para 25

(2001) 3 All ER 433 (HL) referred to.

Para 25 B

(2006) 11 sec 67 dissented.

Para 26

(2008) 2 sec 161 dissented.

Para 26

(2008) 3 sec 213 dissented.

Para 27 c

(1978) 1 sec 405 held inapplicable. Para 38

(1998) 9 sec 236 relied on.

Para 39

1910 (1) sec 648 relied on.

Para 40

(1991) 3 sec 47 relied on.

Para 42

(2002) 5 sec 533 relied on.

Para 42

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 5675-5677 of 2007.

E From the Judgment & Order dated 15.03.2005 of the High Court Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad Writ Petition

No. 17144 of 2004, W.P.M.P. No. 2461 of 2005 and W.P. No. 19354 of 2004.

D.K. Thakur, Naresh Kaushik, Nishant Patil, A. K. Sharma, F W.S.A. Quadri, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellants.

O.P. Bhadani, Brij Bhusan, K. Sarada Devi, Anjani Aiyagari for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are in these cases concerned with the validity of an order dated 04.06.2004 issued by the Railway Board directing the Railway Recruitment Board (in short RRB) to conduct a re-test for recruitment to Group-D H posts, for those candidates who had obtained minimum

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

qualifying marks in the first written examination against which A large scale irregularities were noticed.

2. The RRB vide its employment notification 1/2003 dated 13.06.2003 invited applications for filling up Group 'D' posts in the South Central Railway Zone, Secunderabad. In response B to the notification 10,02,909 applications were received by the RRB out of which 5,86,955 were found eligible and call letters were sent to them for appearing in the written test held at various centres from 09'.11.2003 to 21.11.2003. 3,22,223 candidates appeared for the written test, out of which 2690 were selected to be called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET) C held on 03.02.2004 to 12.02.2004. Candidates who qualified in the PET were called for verification of original certificates from 04.04.2004 to 12.02.2004. During verification it was noticed that certain malpractices had taken place in the written examination. Meanwhile, several complaints were also D received by the RRB stating that certain candidates had indulged in mass copying in some centers, inc:ludinn leakage of question papers 211, l i1r1personation of certain car.didci'.1~·~ Since large scale irregulm!ties and malpractices were noticed it was decided to refer the matter to the State Vigilance E Department. Tl'le Vigilance Department conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted its report which was placed before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court. Portions of the report extracted in the judgment of the High Court prima facie revealed leakage of question papers, mass copying and F impersonation of candidates in the written test. Report also indicated the possibility of involvement of some employees of Railways and outsiders in the malpractices detected. Vigilance Department also recommended that the matter be referred to the Central Bureau of lnvestigation(CBI).

3. The vigilance report and the various complaints were examined by the Railway Board and the Board after discussing the matters with the RRB gave a direction vide its letter dated 04.06.2004 to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had H

A obtained minimum qualifying marks in the written examination.

The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

"Board have gone-into complete details of the matter in view of the nature of malpractices I irregularities involved, it has B been deGided that candidates obtaining minimum qualifying marks may be subjected to another written examination by conducting the same in good educational institution under tight control and supervision. This would ensure the exclusion of those, who might have secured undue advantage in the earlier examination. Thereafter, candidates may be called for PET on C the basis of fresh merit list irrespective of the fact whether some of them had appeared in the PET held on February 2004".

4. Railway Board also ordered that the cases of the candidates referred to GEQD including those found guilty o during the course of investigation by the Vigilance or CBI be

dealt with as per the extant rules at the time of preparation of the final panel or later stage. RRB was directed to take steps to conduct written examination and PET at the earliest. Railway Board vide its letter dated 1st September, 2004 directed the E RRB to go ahead with the examination sqheduled on

26.09.2004.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.04 certain candidates who had taken the first written examination filed 0.A.

No.975/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, F Hyderabad questioning the decision to conduct re-test and also

1 sought for a declaration that they are eligible to be appointed to Group 'D' posts in the South Central Railway Zone, Secunderabad pursuant to the selection held in the month of February, 2004. Alternatively it was contended that even if the G Board had the power to conduct second stage written examination it should be confined only to 2690 candidates who had qualified in the earlier written examination. The stand of the Board was that, there was no illegality in ordering a re-test and para 18.1 of the selection procedure empowered the Board to H do so. Referring to paragraph 18.4 of the employmerrt notice

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

No.1/2003 it was contended that merely qualifying in the written A and I or PET a candidate would not get any vested right for appointment, especially since no final list or panel was published. Reference was also made to the vigilance report and the report of the CBI which prima facie revealed serious malpractices including mass copying, leakage of question B papers and impersonation in the written examination.

6. The Tribunal found no irregularity in the decision taken by the Board in conducting a re-test which was taken after referring to the vigilance report and other relevant materials.

C Further it was noticed that the majority of the candidates had not objected to that course and the applicants had approached the Tribunal only at the eve of the re-test. Further it was also

noticed the final select list was never published, hence no legal rights of the applicants were infringed. O.A. No.975/2004 was, therefore dismissed on 02.09.2004. O.A. No.1008/2004 filed D by few other candidates who had not taken the re-test claiming identical reliefs was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 23.09.2004.

7. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tribunal in OA E No.975 of 2004 and OA No.1008 of 2004, Writ Petition No.17144 of 2004 and Writ Petition No.19354 of 2004 were preferred before the. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Before the High Court it was contended that the decision to cancel the written test was arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles F 14,16 and 21 of the constitution of India. Further it was also pointed out that even if the allegation of mass copying in certain centres was true, those candidates could have been identified and there was no justification to order a re-test for the other candidates, who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the G . wriUen test.

8. The High Court found no reasons to cancel the first written examination and to conduct a re-test for 2690

candidates who got minimum qualifying marks in the written test which included 62 candidates against whom there were serious H

A allegations of impersonation. Referring to the vigilance report, the High Court concluded that the controversy virtually boils down to identifying 62 candidates whose cases stood referred to CEQD/HYD for their certification and hence the process of recruitment could be proceeded with for the rest of the B candidates. Further it was also held by the High Court that the

materials available to support the complaint of leakage of question papers were limited and had no nexus to the large scale irregularities, noticed by the Railways. The High Court also noticed that when the order dated 04.06.2004 was passed c only the vigilance report was available with the Board which was insufficient, to support that order and the materials collected by the CBI subsequently could not be relied upon to support that decision. Further it was also pointed out that no copy of the vigilance report was also made available to the petitioners and

0 the decision taken to conduct a re-test was arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable.

9. The High Court rejected the contentions that the order was politically motivated and ma/a fide but applying Wednesbwy's principle of unreasonableness the Court held E that the decision of the Board was illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and directed the Board to finalise the selection on the basis of the first written test and to issue appointment orders to all the candidates except the 62 candidates against whom there were allegations of impersonation.

10. Aggrieved by the above judgment the RRB has come up with these appeals. Shri D.K. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the Board submitted that the High Court has committed a grave error in sustaining the first written test G conducted by the Board in spite of large scale irregularities and illegalities detected during the course of the enquiry by the Vigilance Department and subsequently by the CBI. Learned counsel submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case the best option available to the Railway Board was to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum H

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

qualifying marks in the first written test, since allegations of A mass copying, leakage of question papers and impersonation were noticed. Learned counsel also stated that the petitioners themselves had pointed out before the Tribunal that if a re-test is conducted, the same be confined only to those 2690 candidates. Learned counsel also submitted that the High B Court has wrongly applied the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Tarun K. Singh,

(2003) 11 SCC 768; B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P. (2002) 5 SCC 533; Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas C Chandra Sinha (1970) 1 SCC 648; State of Maharashtra v.

Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481; Madhyamic Shiksha Manda/, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti (1998) 9 SCC 236 in support of his various contentions.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents tried D to support the judgment of the High Court contending that the best course open to the Railways was to complete the recruitment process based on the first written test after ordering inquiry with respect to the 62 candidates against whom there were allegations of impersonation rather than conducting a re- E test. Learned counsel also pointed out that the report of the Vigilance was not made available to the respondents and, therefore, the action of the Railway Board was illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions learned counsel placed reliance on various F decisions of this Court viz., K. Vijaya/akshmi vs. Union of India

(1998) 4 SCC 37; Asha Kaul vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir

(1993) 2 SCC 573; N. T. Davin Katti vs. Karnanataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157; Union of India vs.

Rajesh P.U. (2003) 7 SCC 285; Munna Roy vs. Union of India G

(2000) 9 SCC 283; Babita Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1993) Suppl.3 SCC 268; Onkar Lal Bajaj vs. Union of India (2003) 2 sec 673.

12. We heard learned counsel on either side at length and we have also gone through the extract of the vigilance report H

A which appears in para 15 of the judgment of the High Court.

Report indicated that 100 to 200 candidates were suspected to have obtained answers for the questions three hours before the examination through some middleman who had arranged answers by accepting huge bribe. Apart from the serious B allegations of impersonation in respect of 62 candidates it was stated on close scrutiny of the answer sheets at least six candidates had certainly adopted unfair means to secure qualifying marks in the written test. Report says that investigation prima facie established leakage of question C papers to a sizable number of candidates for the examination

held on 23.11.2003. Further, it was also noticed that leakage of question paper was pre-planned and widespread and the possibility of involvement of Railway I RRB staff and also outsiders could not be ruled out and hence, recommended that the matter be referred to CBI. The High Court also referred to D the reports of the superintendent of Police PEl(A)/2004/ CBI,

Hyderabad which suggested certain measures to be adopted by the Board to rule out such malpractices in future. Reports of the CBI of course, were not available with the Railway Board when they took the decision on 04.06.2004 to conduct a re-test E but only the vigilance report and the complaints received.

13. We are, in this case, primarily concerned with the question whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the decision taken by the Board in conducting a re-test for those F who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test and directing the Board to go ahead with the recruitment process on the basis of first written test against which there were serious allegations of irregularities and malpractices.

When this matter came up for admission before this Court on G 20.01.2006, this Court permitted the Board to declare the result

of the second test and proceed to appoint the selected candidates, however, it was ordered that the appointments made be subject to the result of these appeals. We are informed that candidates who gc ... _cilified in the re-test were H already appointed and have joine ervice.

, ....

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

14. We will first examine whethr the High Court was A justified in directing the Board to go ahead with the recruitment process based on the first written test in the wake of the report of the Vigilance and the materials collected by the CBI subsequently. Report of the 'vigHance has prima facie established that the allegations of leakage of question papers, B large scale impersonation of candidates, mass copying etc. was true. Possibility of the involvement of the staff of Railways and outsiders was also not ruled out by the Vigilance. In such circumstances, we fail to see how the High Court has concluded that there is no illegality_ in going ahead with the C recruitment process on the basis of the first written test. We-- may indicate that the Railway Board had three alternatives viz.,

(1) to cancel the entire written test, and to conduct a fresh written test inviting applications afresh; (2) to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the 0 first written test; and (3) to go ahead with the first written test (as suggested by the High Court), confining the investigation to 62 candidates against whom.there were serious allegations of impersonation.

15. The High Court applying the Wednesbury's principle E accepted the last alternative by rejecting the decision by the Railway Board to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test.

We are of the view that the High Court has wrongly applied the above principle and misdirected itself in directing the Board to F accept the third alternative. We will examine the decision of the High Court by applying the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness as well as the doctrine of proportionality.

Before that let us examine both the concepts at some length.

 16. Judicial review conventionally is concerned with the G question of jurisdiction and natural justice and the Court is not much concerned with the merits of the decision but how the decision was reached. In Council of Civil Service Unions Vs.

Minister of State for Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935 the .H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A (GCHQ Case) the House of Lords rationalized the grounds of

judicial review and ruled that the basis of judicial review could be highlighted under three principal heads, namely, illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality. Illegality as a ground of judicial review means that the decision maker must B understand correctly the law that regulates his decision making powers and must give effect to it. Grounds such as acting ultra vires, errors of law and/or fact, onerous conditions, improper purpose, relevant and irrelevant factors, acting in bad faith, fettering discretion, unauthorized delegation, failure to act etc., C fall under the heading "illegality". Procedural impropriety may be due to the failure to comply with the mandatory procedures such as breach of natural justice, such as audi a/teram partem, absence of bias, the duty to act fairly, legitimate expectations, failure to give reasons etc.

17. Ground of irrationality takes in Wednesbury . unreasonableness propounded in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947)2 All ER 680, Lord Greene MR alluded to the grounds of attack which could be made against the decision, citing E unreasonableness as an 'umbrella concept' which covers the major heads of review and pointed out that the court can interfere with a decision if it is so absurd that no reasonable decision maker would in law come to it. In GCHQ Case (supra) Lord Diplock fashioned the principle of unreasonableness and F preferred to use the term irrationality as follows:

"By 'irrationality' I mean what can now be succinctly referred to as "Wednesbury's unreasonableness", ....... It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic

or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who .had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it."

18. In R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind {1991) 1 All ER 720, the House of Lords re- H examined the reasonableness of the exercise of the Home

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

Secretary's discretion to issue a notice banning the A transmission of speech by representatives of the Irish Republican Army and. its political party, Sinn Fein. Court ruled that the exercise of the Home Secretary's power did not amount to an unreasonable exercise of discretion despite the issue involving a denial of freedom of expression. House of Lords B however, stressed that in all cases raising a human rights issue proportionality is the appropriate standard of review. The House of Lords in R (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2001) 2 AC 532 demonstrated how the traditional test of Wednesbury unreasonableness has moved towards the c doctrine of necessity and proportionality. Lord Steyn noted that the criteria of proportionality are more precise and more sophisticated than traditional ground& of review and went on to outline three concrete differences between the two:-

(1) Proportionality may require the reviewing Court to D assess the balance which the decision maker has struck, not merely whether it is within the range of rational or reasonable decisions.

(2) Proportionality test may go further than the traditional E grounds of review in as much as it may require attention to be directed to the relative weight accorded to interests and considerations.

(3) Even the heightened scrutiny test is not necessarily F appropriate to the protection of human rights.

19. Lord Steyn also felt most cases would be decided in the same way whatever approach is adopted, though conceded for human right cases proportionality is the appropriate test.

20. The question arose as to whether doctri.ne of proportionality applies only where fundamental human rights are

in issue or whether it will come to provide all aspects of judicial review. Lord Steyn in R. (Alconbury Development Limited) v.

Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the H

A Regions (2001) 2 All ER 929 stated as follows:-

"f consider that even without reference to the Human Rights Act, 1998 the time has come to recognize that this principle (proportionality) is part of English administrative law not only when Judges are dealing with Community acts but also when they are dealing with acts subject to domestic law. Trying to keep the Wednesbury principle and proportionality in separate compartments seems to me to be unnecessary and confusing".

21. Lord Steyn was of the opinion that the difference between both the principles was in practice much less than it was sometimes suggested and whatever principle was applied the result in the case was the same. Whether the proportionality will ultimately supersede the concept of reasonableness or D rationality was also considered by Dyson Lord Justice in R. (Association of British Civilian Internees: Far East Region) v.

Secretary of State for Defence (2003) QB 1397 and stated as follows:-

"We have difficulty in seeing what justification there now is for retaining Wednesbury test ..... but we consider that it is not for this Court to perform burial rights. The continuing existence of the Wednesbury test has been .acknowledged by H'ouse of Lords on more than one occasion. A survey of the various judgments of House of Lords, Court of Appeals, etc. would reveal for the time being both the tests continued to co-exist."

22. Position in English Administrative Law is that both the tests that is. Wednesbury and proportionality continue to co- G exist and the proportionality test is more and more applied, when there is violation of human rights, and fundamental freedom and the Wednesbury finds its presence more on the domestic law when there is violations of citizens ordinary rights.

Proportionality principle has not so far replaced the H

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

Wednesbury principle and the time has not reached to say A good bye to Wednesbury much less its burial.

),1'

 ·. 23. In Huang case (2007) 4 All ER 15 (HL), the House of Lords was concerned with the question whether denial of asylum infringes Article 8 (Right to Respect Family Life) of the B Human Rights Act, 1998. House of Lords ruled that it was the dutYof the authorities when faced with individuals who did not qualify under the rules to consider whether the refusal of asylum status was unlawful on the ground that it violated the i_ndividual's right to family life. A structured proportionality test has emerged C from that decision in the context of the violation of human rights.

In R (Daly) (supra) the House of Lords considered both common law and Article 8 of the convention and ruled that the policy of excluding prisoners from their cells while prison officers conducted searches, which included scrutinizing 0 , privileged legal correspondence was unlawful.

24. Both the above-mentioned cases, mainly concerned with the violation of human rights under the Human Rights Act, 1998 but demonstrated the movement away from the traditional test of Wednesbury unreasonableness towards the test of E proportionality. But it is not safe to conclude that the principle of Wednesbury unreasonbleness has been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality.

25. Justice S.B. Sinha, as His Lordship then was, speaking F for the Bench in State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava and Others (2006) 3 SCC 276 after referring to the juc!_gment of the Court of appeal in Huang v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2005) 3 All ER 435, R. v. Secretary of State of the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001) 3 All ER 433 (HL) opinedthat Wednesbury principle mi.y not now be G held to be applicable in view of the development in constitutional law and held as follows:-

"24. While saying so, we are not oblivious of the fact that H

" 312

the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.

25. It is interesting to note that the Wednesbury principles may not now be held to be applicable in view of the development in constitutional law in this behalf. See, for example, Huang v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt. wherein referring to R. v. Secy. of State of the Home Deptt., ex p Daly, it was held that in certain cases, the adjudicator may require to conduct a judicial exercise which is not merely more intrusive than Wednesbury, but involves a fuffblown merit judgment, which is yet more than ex p. Daly, requires on a judicial review where the court has to decide a proportionality issue."

26. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava case was later followed D in Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D. Kanan (2006) 11 SCC 67.

Following the above mentioned two judgments in Jitendra Kumar And Others v. State of Haryana and Another (2008) 2 SCC 161, the Bench has referred to a passage in HWR Wade and CF Forsyth on Administrative Law, 9th Edition. (2004), E pages 371-372 with the caption "Goodbye to Wednesbury"

and quoted from the book which reads as follows:-

''The Wednesbury doctrine is now in terminal decline but the coup de grace has not yet fallen, despite calls for it from very high authorities" and opined that in some F jurisdictions the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to doctrine of proportionality."

27. Indian Airlines Ltd 's case and Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava's case (supra) were again followed in State of G Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Hazarilal, (2008) 3 SCC 273 and the Bench opined as follows:-

"Furthermore the legal parameters of judicial review have

undergone a change. Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of H proportionality.".

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

28. With due respect, we are unable to subscribe to that A view, which is an overstatement of the English Administrative Law.

29. Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness as such has not been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality though 8 that test is being applied more and more when violation of human rights is alleged. H. WR. Wade & C.F. Forsyth in the 10th Edition of Administrative Law (2009), has omitted the passage quoted by this court in Jitender Kumar case and stated as follows:

"Notwithstanding the apparent persuasiveness of these views the coup de grace has not yet fallen on Wednesbury unreasonableness. Where a matter falls outside the ambit

of 1998 Act, the doctrine is regularly relied upon by the courts. Reports of its imminent demise are perhaps D exaggerated." (emphasis applied).

30. Wednesbury and Proportionality - Wednesbury applies to a decision which is so reprehensible in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral or ethical standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the issue to be E decided could have arrived at it. Proportionality as a legal test is capable of being more precise and fastidious than a reasonableness test as well as requiring a more intrusive review of a decision made by a public authority which requires F the courts to 'assess the balance or equation' struck by the decision maker. Proportionality test in some jurisdictions is also described as the "least injurious means" or "minimal impairment" test so as to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens and to ensure a fair balance between individual rights and public interest. Suffice to say that there has been an G overlapping of all these tests in its content and structure, it is difficult to compartmentalize or lay down a straighLjacket formula and to say that Wednesbury has met with its death knell is too tall a statement. Let us, however, recognize the fact that the current trend seems to favour proportionality test but H

A Wednesbury has not met with its judicial burial and a state

burial, with full ho111ours is surely not to happen in the near future.

31. Proportionality, requires the Court to judge whether action taken was really needed as well as whether it was within

8 the range of courses of action which could reasonably be followed. Proportionality is more concerned with the aims and intention of the decision-maker and whether the decision-maker has achieved more or less the correct balance or equilibrium.

Courts entrusted with the task of judicial review has to examine C whether decision taken by the authority is proportionate, i.e.

well balanced and harmonious, to this extent court may indulge in a merit review and if the court finds that the decision is proportionate, it seldom interferes with the decision taken and if it finds that the decision is disproportionate i.e. if the court feels that it is not well balanced or harmonious and does not D stand to reason it may tend to interfere.

32. Leyland and Anthony on Textbook on Administrative Law (5th edn. OUP, 2005) at p.331 has amply put as follows:

"Proportionality works on the assumption that administrative action ought not to go beyond what is necessary to achieve its desired results (in every day terms, that you should not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut) and in contrast to irrationality is often understood to bring the courts much cl9ser to reviewing the merits of a decision".

33. Courts have to develop an indefeasible and principled approach to proportionality till that is done there will always be an overlapping between the traditional grounds of review and G the principle of proportionality and the cases would continue to be decided in the same manner whichever principle is adopted. Proportionality as the word indicates has reference to variables or comparison, it enables the Court to apply the principle with various degrees of intensity and offers a

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

potentially deeper inquiry into the reasons, projected by the A decision maker.

34. We shall now test the validity of the order impugned applying both the principles.

35. Application of the principles

We have already indicated the three alternatives available

to the decisionmaker (Board) when serious infirmities were pointed out in the conduct of the first written test. Let us examine which was the best alternative, the Board could have accepted c applying the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Was the decision taken by the Board to conduct a re-test for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have decided so and whether the Board before 0 reaching that conL.USion h<:ld taken into account the matters which they ought not to have taken into account or had refused to take into account the matters that they ought to have taken into account and the decision taken by it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it?

Judging the decision taken by the Board applying the standard laid down in the Wednesbury principle unreasonableness, the first alternative that is the decision to cancel the entire written

test and to conduct a fresh written test would have been time consuming and expensive. Initially 10,02,909 applications were F received when advertisement was issued by the Board out of which 5,86,955 were found to be eligible and call letters were sent to them for appearing in the written test held at various centres. 3,22,223 candidates appeared for the written test, out of which 2690 were selected. Further the candidates who had approached the Court had also not opted that course instead G many of them wanted to conduct a re-test for 2690 candidates, the second alternative. The third alternative was to go ahead with the first written test confining the investigation to 62 candidates against whom there were serious allegations of impersonation. The Board felt in the wake of the vigilance report H '\

A and the reports of the CBI, it would not be the best option for the Railway Administration to accept the third alternative since there were serious allegations of malpractices against the test.

From a reasonable man's point of view it was felt that the second option i.e. to conduct a re-test for those candidates who B had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test was the best alternative.

36. We will now apply the proportionality test to three alternatives suggested. Principle of proportionality, as we have already indicated, is more concerned with the aims of the C decision maker and whether the decision maker has achieved the correct balance. The proportionality test may require the attention of the Court to be directed to the relative weight according to interest and considerations. When we apply that test and look at the three alternatives. we are of the view that D the decision maker has struck a correct balance in accepting the second alternative. First alternative was not accepted not only because such a process was time consuming and expensive, but nobody favoured that option, and even the candidates who had approached the court was more in favour E of the second alternative. Applying the proportionality test also in our view the Board has struck the correct balance in adopting the second alternative which was well balanced and harmonious.

37. We, therefore hold, applying the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness as well as the proportionality test, the decision taken by the Board in the facts and circumstances of this case was fair, reasonable, well balanced and harmonious.

By accepting the third alternative, the High Court was G perpetuating the illegality since there were serious allegations

of leakage of question papers, large scale of impersonation by candidates, mass copying in the first written test.

38. We are also of the view that the High Court has committed a grave error in taking the view that the order of the H Board could be judged only on the basis of the reasons stated

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

in the impugned order based on the report of vigilance and not A on the subsequent materials furnished by the CBI. Possibly, the High Court had in mind the constitution bench judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 405

39. We are of the view that the decision maker can always B

rely upon subsequent materials to support the decision already taken when larger public interest is involved. This Court in Madhyamic Shiksha Manda/, M.P. v. Abhi/ash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others, (1998) 9 SCC 236 found no irregularity in placing reliance on a subsequent report to sustain C the cancellation of the examination conducted where there were serious allegations of mass copying. The principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill's case is not applicable where larger public interest is involved and in such situations, additional grounds can be looked into to examine the validity of an order. D Finding recorded by the High Court that the report of the CBI cannot be looked into to examine the validity of order dated 04.06.2004, cannot be sustained.

40. We also find it difficult to accept the reasoning of the E High Court that the copy of the Vigilance report should have been made available to the candidates at least when the matters came up for hearing. Copy of the report, if at all to be served, need be served only if any action is proposed against the individual candidates in connection with the malpractices F alleged. Question here lies on a larger canvas as to whether the written test conducted was vitiated by serious irregularities like mass copying, impersonation and leakage of question paper, etc not against the conduct of few candidates. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment of this G Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra

Sinha and others, 1970(1) sec 648. That was a case where 36 students of S.S.H.E. School, Jagdishpur and H.E. School Malaur, District Shahbad, moved a Writ Petition before the Patna High Court against the order of the Board canceling H

A annual Secondary School Examination of 1969 in relation to Hanswadih Centre in Shahbad District. The High Court quashed the order of cancellation and directed the Board to publish the results. Against the judgment and order of the High Court the Board filed an appeal by way of special leave petition B to this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and upheld the order of the Board cancelling the examination. On the complaint that no opportunity was given to the candidates to represent their case before cancellation, this Court observed as follows:-

"This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any 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 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 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 whole had to go."

41. Applying the above principle, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the High Court that non supply of the G copy of the Vigilance report to the candidates was a legal

infirmity, cannot be sustained.

42. Writ Petitioners, in our view, have also no legal right to insist that they should be appointed to Group 'D' posts. Final merit list was never published. No appointment orders were H issued to the candidates. Even if a number of vacancies were

SHYAM KUMAR [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates A were found successful, they would not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed against the existing vacancies. This legal position has been settled by a catena of decisions of this Court.

Reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47; B. 8 Ramanjini and Others v. State of A.P. and Others, (2002) 5 sec 533.

43. We are also of the view that the High Court was in error in holding that the materials available relating to leakage of C question papers was limited and had no reasonable nexus to the alleged large scale irregularity. Even a minute leakage of question paper would be sufficient to besmirch the written test and to go for a re-test so as to achieve the ultimate object of fair selection.

44. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the decision taken by D

the Board in conducting the second written test for those who have obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test rather than going ahead with the first written test which was tainted by large scale irregularities and malpractices. The E Board can now take further steps to regularize the results of the second test and the appointments of the selected candidates.

Ordered accordingly. Appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.

K.K.T.

Appeals allowed.