Case Note & Summary
The special leave petition arose against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated July 15, 1996, in Original Application No.959 of 1995, which upheld the cancellation of a select list for Group C posts of Ticket Collectors in Lucknow Division. The recruitment notification was issued on July 19, 1994, inviting applications for 48 Ticket Collectors in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. Out of 800 candidates who appeared in the examination, 106 candidates were placed in the select list. The select list was subsequently cancelled on the ground that malpractice was committed in writing the examinations as the papers were leaked out earlier to the date of examination. The cancellation was challenged before the Tribunal, which upheld it, leading to the special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioners raised three contentions. First, that the Deputy Divisional Manager was not competent to cancel the select list, and only the General Manager had authority. Second, that the cancellation order did not indicate reasons and was therefore bad in law. Third, that although selected candidates have no vested right, they had a legitimate expectation for appointment and should be given prior opportunity and reasons for cancellation. The Supreme Court rejected the first contention, holding that the Divisional Manager can be authorised by the General Manager to discharge the General Manager's functions. On the second contention, the Court acknowledged that administrative or quasi-judicial orders should contain reasons and cannot be supplemented by affidavits. However, relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi, the Court held that if the record indicates reasons, the order may be sustained even if the order itself does not contain reasons. In this case, the matter was referred to CBI, whose preliminary report indicated malpractice in writing the examination. The Court found that the authorities took the decision on the basis of the CBI report, which contained proof supporting the allegations, and therefore the cancellation order could not be said to lack reasons. On the third contention, the Court held that selected candidates do not get any vested right or legitimate expectation until they are appointed according to the Rules; they only have a chance to be appointed. The decision in Asha Kaul was distinguished because the cancellation was based on the investigating agency's report and was necessary to conduct a fair and proper examination. The Court further held that no prior opportunity need be given in cases of mass copying, and this was not a case where a named candidate committed copying. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Competence of Authority - Cancellation of Select List - Not mentioned - The petitioners contended that only the General Manager was competent to cancel the select list and not the Deputy Divisional Manager. The court rejected this, holding that the Divisional Manager can be authorised by the General Manager to discharge the General Manager's functions, and therefore the cancellation was within competence. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Administrative Law - Reasoned Order - Necessity of Reasons on Record - Not mentioned - The petitioners argued the cancellation order was bad for not indicating reasons and could not be supplemented by affidavit. The court acknowledged that public orders should contain reasons, but relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi, it held that if the record indicates reasons, the order may be sustained. Here the CBI preliminary report indicated malpractice, which formed the basis for cancellation. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Service Law - Legitimate Expectation - No Vested Right Before Appointment - Not mentioned - The petitioners claimed selected candidates had a legitimate expectation and should receive prior opportunity and reasons. The court held that selected candidates do not get any vested right or legitimate expectation until appointed according to the Rules; they only have a chance to be appointed. In cases of mass copying, no prior opportunity need be given, and the cancellation was ordered to conduct a fair exam. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Administrative Law - Mass Copying - Prior Opportunity Not Required - Not mentioned - The court distinguished the present case from Asha Kaul because the competent authority had cancelled the selection after perusing the investigating agency's report, and the cancellation was for regular and proper examination. No prior opportunity was required where malpractice was general and not attributable to a named candidate. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Deputy Divisional Manager was competent to cancel select list; whether cancellation order must contain reasons and whether absence of reasons invalidates order; whether selected candidates were entitled to prior opportunity based on legitimate expectation before cancellation for mass malpractice
Final Decision
Special leave petition dismissed; Supreme Court upheld Tribunal order cancelling select list; no illegality found.
Law Points
- Orders exercising statutory power must contain reasons and cannot be supplemented by affidavits
- record may indicate reasons even if order does not
- candidates selected by recruitment agency have no vested right or legitimate expectation until appointed according to rules
- no prior opportunity need be given in cases of mass copying
- Divisional Manager can be authorised by General Manager to discharge functions
