Supreme Court of India

BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR.versusVINOY KUMAR SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: 2003 INSC 365
Decided: 4 August 2003
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: M B SHAH

Holding

The Bihar Public Service Commission is authorized under Rule 15A of the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 to take action against a candidate for unfair means even after the examination result is declared, and the delay in notice does not invalidate such action.

Summary

The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) conducted a competitive examination in 1983, declared the results in 1985 and later, after a two‑year gap, issued a show‑cause notice to Vinoy Kumar Singh alleging unfair means in the General Knowledge paper. The Commission cancelled his answer‑sheet and debarred him. Singh challenged the action before the High Court; the Single Judge dismissed the writ, but the Division Bench set aside the judgment, holding that the Commission could not act after the result was published. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Rule 15A of the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 empowers the Commission to investigate and penalise candidates for unfair means even after the result is declared, and that the delay in issuing the notice does not render the action illegal. The Court also found that the Commission had afforded Singh a reasonable opportunity to be heard and that the natural‑justice grievance was not fatal. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upheld the Commission’s action, and set aside the Division Bench’s order.

Issues considered

The extent of the Bihar Public Service Commission's power under Rule 15A to cancel answer‑sheets and debar a candidate for unfair means discovered after the examination result has been published.
Whether the two‑year delay in issuing the show‑cause notice defeats the Commission’s authority to act.
Whether the denial of access to other candidates' answer‑books and specimen invigilator signatures violated principles of natural justice.
The correctness of the High Court Division Bench's interpretation that the Commission cannot act post‑result.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 320

Subjects

service lawpublic service commissionunfair meansexamination debarmentRule 15Ashow‑cause noticenatural justicejudicial review

Judgment

BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ANI:i ANR. A
v.
VINOY KUMAR SINGH AND ANR.

AUGUST 4, 2003.

[M.B. SHAH AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Service
(Recruitment) Rules, 1951-Rule 15A-Recruitment-Examination- C
Commission publishing result of successful candidates-Interview for the ~ivil
posts-Candidate giving option-Subsequently, Commission issuing showca'use
notice to the candidate for adopting unfair means in the paper-Commission
cancelling the paper and debarring the candidate from the examination-Writ
petition-Single Judge of High Court dismissing the same however, Division D
Bench quashing the order of the Commission-On appeal, held: Commission
is entitled to initiate action against the candidate for adopting unfair means
in the examination and debarring him from the examination-Hence no infirm'ity
in the action taken by the Commission and order of Division Bench set asi#e.

Appellant-Commission invited applications for the Competitive E
Exam for filling up various Civil Posts. Respondent No.1 appeared in the
examination and was declared successful. Appellant-Commission then
announced and published the result of the successful candidates.
Respondent No.I appeared in the interview and gave his option for tlie
post. Thereafter, appellant-Commission issued show cause notice fo F
respondent No. I for adopting unfair means in the examination.
Respondent No.1 gave reply. Appellant-Commission considered the reply
and cancelled the answer-sheet and debarred respondent No.1 from the
examination. He filed a writ petition. Single Judge of the High Court
dismissed the petition. However, Division Bench set aside the order of the
Single Judge and quashed the order of the Commission. Hence the present G
appeal.

Appellants contended that interpretation put by the Division Bench
will have devastating effect if it is held that the Commission has no power
to take action against a candidate who had adopted unfair means in the
215 H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A examination, after the conclusion of the examination or beyond the
premises of the examination hall; that the power of the Commission to
conduct examinations is conferred under the Constitution and therefore,
the power is not controlled by the limitations imposed, if any, by any
statutory provisions; that the Division Bench also failed to appreciate that
B the Single Judge compared the signatures of the invigilator on the answer-
sheet of the respondent No.1 and others, and the difference in the signature
of the invigilator was so glaring that he concluded that the present answer-
books were not at all written in the examination centre and this answer-
book has been subsequently substituted. for the one written in the
· examination centre and in that event, there would be no question of
C invigilator's noticing the unfair means at the time of using the same in ...
'
the examination hall; and that it was not the case ofrespondent No.I that
the Division Bench had not undertaken the exercise of perusal of the
records by themselves as did by the Single Judge.

Respondent No.I contended that the lapse of over two years from
D the date of examination in declaring the result is not consistent with the
statement that any complaint was made or was pending against the
respondent; that on receipt of the charge-sheet, respondent No.I ·filed an
application before the.Commission for allowing him to see certain records
and to furnish him specimen signatures of invigilator but the access to these
E documents was denied and no specimen signatures were furnished; that
the interpretation by the Division Bench of High Court that the
Commission has no power to take action against a candidate who had
committed unfair means in the examination after conclusion of
examination or beyond premises of the examination hall is consistent with
the rules; that respondent No.1 was never charged for adopting unfair
F means; that two years after the examination _result was published showing
respondent No.I was a successful candidate, thus the Commission was not
justified in rejecting the answer papers; and that the power under Article
226 is of judicial review and the High Court can only examine the
procedural correctness and cannot go into the merits of the controversy
G like an appellate authority.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The State Public Services Commission has jurisdiction
to find out malpractices. Under Rule 15 A Clause (vi) of the Bihar Civil
H Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar Junior Civil Service (Recruitment)
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. V.K. SINGH 217
Rules, 1951 the Commission is entitled to initiate action against any A
candidate if the candidate is found guilty of resorting to any irregular or
improper means for obtaining admission to the examination or using any
other unfair means in the examination hall. If any candidate is found guilty
l he may be expelled from the examination hall or the Commission may a.lso
invalidate his answer-books or may debar the said candidate either
permanently or for a specified period. The Division Bench of High Court B
gave interpretation of the rule to the effect that the Commission has 'no
power to take action against a candidate who had committed unfair means
in the examination after conclusion of the examination or beyond premises
of the examination hall and observed that there was no allegation against
respondent No.I of adoption of any unfair means in the course .of C
examination and the Commission after two years of publication of the
result initiated action against respondent No. 1. The interpretation given
by the Division Bench is not correct. (224-C; 226-E-F-G(

1.2. Single Judge of High Court on inspection of answer books llas
clearly found that the principal answer book and the additional ans~er D
book contain the signature of invigilator S but his signature on the answer
books of the other candidates who were sitting in the same room is wholly
different and, therefore, the present answer book was not at all written
in the examination centre and that the answer book had been subsequently
substituted for the one written in the examination centre and in that event E
there would be no question of the invigilators noticing the use of unfair
means at the time of using the same in the examination hall. This finding
cannot be faulted with. [225-A-C]

1.3. A perusal of the show cause notice issued to respondent No, I
show that the charge against him was for adoption of unfair means in t~e p
examination. By issuing the notice an opportunity was given to him to offer
his explanation with regard to the charges. The Commission consideri~g
the reply cancelled the answer-sheet of the paper and also debarred
respondent No.I from the said examination. The authorities of the
Commission have, acted within the four corners of the rules, regulations
and executive instructions. They have adhered to the rule of law. It cannot G
be said that the entire exercise by the Commission in cancelling th.e
respondent's examination is vitiated by illegality and procedur~I
impropriety. There has been no infirmity in the decision making process
by the Commission. Courts can certainly examine whether the decision
making process was reasonable, rationale and not arbitrary on the facts H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A and circumstances in each case. Therefore, the impugned action initiated
by the Commission in cancelling the examination of respondent No. l and
debarring him is well-founded and calls for no interference. (227-A-E(

I.4. The delay in issuing the show-cause notice cannot also be faulted
with. The Commission is entrusted with the task of conducting
B examinations for the very many public services under the State and the
Commission is conducting examinations and interviews for lakhs and lakhs ...
of people every year. While undertaking this process, delay may occur due
to various unavoidable reasons. Things which may go unnoticed at one
point of time may be noticed subsequently and the same delay in noticing
C the contumacious act at a later stage cannot at all be termed as illegal. At
the same time this Court cannot close its eyes to the actions initiated by
the Commission of the grave charges leveled against respondent No.I
though belatedly. (225-C-El

1.5. Regarding the grievance of respondent No.I that he was not
D allowed to see the answer-books of other candidates in the concerned
subject nor the specimen signature of the invigilators of that centre,
respondent No.I failed to request the Division Bench to see the answer-
books of other candidates in the concerned subject nor the specimen
signature of the invigilators of that centre. Such a request at this distance
E of time cannot be countenanced. (227-E-Fl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6946 of 1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.1994 of the Patna High
Court in LP.A. No. 147 of 1988.
F Dr. Rajeev Dhawan and Navin Prakash for the Appellants.

M.N. Rao, Santosh Kumar and Chandra Kanta Nayak for Mis. K.L. ·•
Mehta & Co. for the Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. This appeal was filed by the Bihar Public
Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") against
the judgment and order dated 05.12.1994 of the High Court of Judicature at
Patna passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 147 of 1988 whereby a Division
H Bench allowed the said appeal of respondent No. I /writ petitioner (Vinoy ·
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. V.K. SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 219
Kumar Singh) and consequently set aside the judgment and order dated A
28.08.1988 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ
petition filed by the writ petitioner and came to the conclusion that the
authorities of the Commission are not authorized to take any steps after
l publication of the result of the examination. The Court held that it is not o~en
to the Authorities of the Commission to issue a show-cause notice and to take
any action after the conclusion of the examination unless there is any specific B
rule pennitting the Authorities to do so. The Bench also held that no action
can be taken against the candidate for committing unfair means committed
by him in the course of the examination. Thus the High Court came to the
conclusion that in the absence of any rules or executive instructions, the
entire exercise of the Commission is vitiated by illegality and procedural C
impropriety. The Division Bench further came to the conclusion that the
principles of natural justice have also not been properly observed inasmuch
as the respondent's request to inspect and examine the answer books of other
candidates and the specimen signature of the Invigilator thereon was denieq.
The Division Bench finally came to the conclusion that the learned Single
Judge of the High Court had himself tried to fonn an opinion about the D
alleged misconduct of the writ petitioner and hence the learned Single Judge
has committed an error of law. In view of the aforesaid conclusion and
... findings, the Division Bench set aside the order dated 22.09.1986 of the.
Commission debarring respondent No. I/writ petitioner from the examination
and directed the Commission to treat the candidate/writ petitioner as a E
successful candidate. However, it refrained from giving any direction to the
Commission for appointing the writ petitioner to the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police or any other post as prayed for as they felt that such
a direction was beyond the scope of the writ petition.

In order to appreciate the various contentions raised by the Commission F
in this appeal, it is necessary to recite the facts in brief.

The Commission invited applications in the prescribed profonna from
eligible graduate candidates for appearing in the 3 I st Combined Competitive
Examination conducted for filling up various Civil Posts. The written
examination was to commence w.e.f. 12.02.1983. Respondent No.I, being a G
graduate, applied for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police as also for
Deputy Collector in the prescribed proforma. The Commission after

• preliminary scrutiny and having found respondent No. I eligible, allotted him
Roll No. 16306 and also issued him an Admit Card in order to enable him '
to appear in the said written examination which was to commence from
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A I2.02. I 983. Respondent No. I was required to appear in General Science,
General Knowledge and General Hindi papers which were compulsory
subjects. The result of the successful candidates was announced and published
by the Commission and respondent No. I was one of the successful candidates.
\
Respondent No.I, being successful in the written examination, was called
upon by the Commission to appear for an interview on 08.04. I 985.
B Accordingly, respondent No. I appeared in the viva voce test on 08.04. I 985.
On I2.08. I 985, respondent No. I was called upon to show cause by 30.08.1985
as he was accused of having committed unfair means in the General Knowledge
Paper of the 31st Combined Competitive Examination and which the
Commission after due consideration, had prima facie found correct.
c "(A) The main answer-sheet as also additional answer-sheets of General
Knowledge Paper contains forged signature of the Invigiiator
which is found corroborated by a comparison of the signature of
the Invigilator on the answer-sheets of other candidates of that
room/hall;
D (B) From a perusal of the answer-sheet, it appears that the entire
answer-sheet is based on materials smuggled from outside; and

E
(C) On the main page of the answer-sheet, there are ink marks which
is different ink than one used in the answer-sheets. It was further
stated that in case, his show-cause to the aforesaid charges is not
received by 30.8.85 through Registered Post, then it will be
-
presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter. "

The final result was declared by the Commission on I3.08.1985. To the
show-cause notice, respondent No. I submitted his reply. The Commission,
after considering the explanation to the show cause of respondent No. I and
F the other materials, vide order dated 22.09. I 986 decided to cancel the answer-
sheet of the General Knowledge Paper of the said examination. The
Commission also decided that respondent No. I will stand debarred from the
said examination.

G Respondent No. I, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition before the High
Court. The learned Single Judge of tiJ.e High Court dismissed the same and
came to the conclusion that the charges do disclose use of unfair means and
respondent No. I correctly understood the charges and furnished explanation
therefor. The learned Single Judge after perusing the answer- book of
respondent No. I and other candidates and comparing the signature of the
H Invigilator came to the conclusion that they do not tally and that the difference
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. V.K. SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 221

is glaring to the bare eyes. However, the learned Single Judge came to the A
conclusion that the charge regarding use of smuggled materials has not been
proved in the absence of any material relied upon or produced in the Court.
However, in any event, the learned Single Judge held that the first ch~rge
levelled against respondent No. I stands established.

Being aggrieved respondent No.I filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 147 B
of 1988 before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench
vide its impugned judgment allowed the same and as stated earlier, set aside
the judgment and order dated 28.08.1988 of the learned Single Judge and
quashed the order dated 22.09 .1986 of the Commission debarring the
candidature of the first respondent from the 3 lst Combined Competitive C
Examination and directed the Commission to treat respondent No. I as a
successful candidate. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that denial
of inspection by the Commission of the specimen signatures of the Invigilator
in question and the answer-books of the other candidates constitute a violation
of the principles of natural justice. The Division Bench also came to the
conclusion that the Commission is not authorized to take any steps after D
publication of the result of the examination. The Division Bench also held
that the application of the rules is confined to cases where detection of unfair
means is done in the course of conducting of the examination in the
examination hall and that there is no rule or executive instruction which
empowers the Commission to issue show-cause notice after the result has E
been published of a successful candidate who has been interviewed and aske9
to submit his option in connection with a competitive examinatioA. In
conclusion, the Division Bench held that the entire exercise by the Commission
·in purporting to cancel the first respondent's examination in absence of any
rule or executive instruction is vitiated by illegality and procedural impropriety;
The Division Bench relying on Rule 15A of the Bihar Civil Services (Executive F
Branch) and the Bihar Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1951 came
to the conclusion that the Commission being the constitutional functionaries'
have to act within the four comers of the rules in the matter of conducting
the examination and in publication of the results and all other allied matters
and that the authorities of the Commission are not authorized to take any.
steps after publication of the result of the examination. Aggrieved by the G
impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the above appeal has been filed ·
in this Court.

We heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the appellant
-Commission and Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior counsel for respondent No.l. · H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Learned senior counsel for the appellant took us through the pleadings and
the judgments rendered by the High Court and also all the Annexures and the
rules. According to the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the
interpretation put by the Division Bench will have devastating and startling
effect if it is to be held that the Commission has no power to take action
B against a candidate who had committed unfair means in the examination after
the conclusion of the examination or beyond premises of the examination
hall. He would further submit that the Division Bench has failed to appreciate
that the use of unfair means is not confined to copying or impersonating
another candidate or being impersonated by any other person or
communicating with any person for the purpose of getting help or for aiding
C any other candidate which are necessarily to be in .the examination hall and
at the time of examination. According to the learned senior counsel for the
appellant, adoption of unfair means need not be necessarily confined in the
examination hall alone but will include any unfair means adopted at any
stage even after the conclusion ofthe examination such as getting his original
answer-sheets substituted or addition or additional answer-sheets in collusion
D with the staff of the Commission which necessarily shall be after the conclusion
of the examination but shall nevertheless be unfair means.

He invited our attention to the statutory rule i.e. the Bihar Civil Services
(Executive Branch) and the Bihar Civil Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1951.
E He further submitted that the power of the Commission to conduct
examinations is conferred under Article 320 of the Constitution and, therefore,
the power of the Commission is not controlled by the limitations imposed, if
any, by any statutory provisions.

Dr. Rajeev Dhawan further submitted that the Division Bench also
F failed to appreciate that the learned Single Judge in order to satisfy himself
had himself seen the answer-sheet of respondent No. l and compared the
signatures of the Invigilator thereon with other answer-sheets and the differe1we
in the signature of the Invigilator on the answer-sheet of respondent No. I •
was so glaring that it came to the conclusion that the present answer-books
were not at all written in the examination centre and this answer-book has
G been subsequently substituted for the one written in the examination centre
and in that event, there will be no question of Invigilator's noticing the unfair
means ~t the time of using the same in the examination hall which is also
corroborated from the answers given which appears to be based on the
smuggled materials. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan drew our attention to the grounds of
H appeal in Letters Patent Appeal No. 147 of 1988 filed in the Patna High
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. V.K. SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 223

Court by respondent No. I and pointed out that it was not the case of respondent A
No. I that the learned Judges of the Division Bench had not undertaken the
exercise of perusal of the records by themselves as did by the learned Single
Judge. A perusal of the grounds of Letters Patent Appeal would show that
respondent No. I has not raised any grounds in that regard.

Per contra Mr. M.N. Rao, learned senior c.ounsel for respondent No. I B
submitted that the written examination was held on 12.02.1983 and the result
was declared after the efflux of two years on 08.03.1985 and that respondent
No. l was a successful candidate and as a sequel to the publication of the
result, respondent No.I was asked to appear in the oral interview on 08.04.1985
and the respondent appeared for oral interview and gave his first choice for , C
the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and second choice for the post
of Deputy Collector. He submitted that this sequence of events and lapse of
over two years from the date of examination is not consistent with the statement
that any complaint was made or was pending against the respondent as stated ·
in paras 7 and 8 of the special leave petition. He submitted that on receipt
of the charge-sheet, respondent No. l filed an application before the Special D
Executive Officer of the Commission for allowing him to see certain records
and to furnish him specimen signatures of Invigilator but the access of these
documents was denied and no specimen signatures were furnished and,
therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated and adequate
opportunity was denied to the first respondent. He also denied that the answer- E
sheet was based on material smuggled from outside. He also submitted that
no adverse inference can be drawn from the facts stated in the special leave
_petition that on the main page of the answer-sheet there are ink marks which
are in different ink than the one used in the answer-sheets. According to the
learned senior counsel for the respondent, the interpretation by the Division
Bench of the High Court is consistent with the rules. He has further contended F
that respondent No. I was never charged for adopting unfair means in the

•' General Knowledge paper and, therefore, the impugned order is bad. He has
further contended that after publication of the result of the written test, two
years after the examination was held showing respondent No. I was a successful
candidate, the Commission was not justified in rejecting the answer papers of G
the General Knowledge. Mr. Rao relied upon a decision of this Court in the
case of Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. v. Roochira Ceramics
and Anr., [ 1996] 6 SCC 584 (page 586 para 4) and submitted that the power
u.nder Article 226 is the power of judicial review and that the High Court can
only examine the procedural correctness and cannot go into the merits of the
controversy like an appellate authority. He also relied on a judgment of this H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Court in the case of Sterling Computers Limited v. Mis M & N Publications
Limited and Ors. etc., [1993] I SCC 445 at 458 and submitted that while
exercising the power of judicial review, the Court is concerned primarily as
to whether there has been any infirmity in the "decision making process" and
by way of judicial review the Court cannot examine the details of the terms
B of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State
and that the Court have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry.

We have perused the records. In our opinion, the argument advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellant merits acceptance. We are of the
opinion that the Commission has jurisdiction to find out malpractices. In the
C instant case, the Chief Examiner reported to the Commission about the adoption
of unfair means by the writ petitioner, respondent No. I in the General
Knowledge Paper. Therefore, the Commission vide its memo No. 56 dated
12.08.1985 called upon respondent No.I to show cause by 30.08.1985 as he "'
was accused of having committed unfair means in the General Knowledge
paper. It is also seen from the records that the Commission on 13.08.1985
D published and declared the final result of the examination and a request
thereafter was made by respondent No. I to the Special Executive Officer of
the Commission requesting to allow him to see the answer-sheets of the other
candidates who were appearing along with him in the said hall as also the
specimen signatures of the Invigilators who were invigilating the said
E examination in the said hall. Accordingly, on 15.08.1985, respondent No.I
was allowed to see his answer-book of the General Knowledge paper. The
Commission, after considering the explanation offered by respondent· No. I
and other materials. vide memo No. 109 dated 22.09.1986 decided to cancel
the answer-sheet of the General Knowledge Paper of respondent No. I of the
said examination and also decided further to debar him from the said
F examination. It is also seen from the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge that the answer-books of the first respondent in General
Knowledge along with few other answer-books of other candidates were
produced for inspection of the Court during the course of hearing and that on
23.05.1988, after perusal of the answer-books, an order was recorded to the
effect that some droppage of ink was found on the cover page of tlie answer-
G book and that the signature of the invigilator on the main answer book and
the additional answer papers appears to be of one Mr. R.P. Sao and that the
answer book number of other candidates, namely, 66452, 66453, 66454,
66455 and 66456 have been produced to show that the signature of Mr. R.P.
Sao on those answer books are wholly different than R.P. Sao's signature on
H the answer-book of respondent No.I and they do not appear to tally with
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. V.K. SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 225
those found in the answer-books of other candidates. The learned Single A
Judge has also rejected the explanation of respondent No. I offered in this
regard. The learned Judge has clearly found that the principal answer book
and the additional answer book contain the signature of Mr. R.P. Sao but Mr.
R.P. Sao's signature on the answer books of the other candidates who were
sitting in the same room is wholly different and, therefore, it is crystal clear
that the present answer book was not at all written in the examination centre B
and that the answer book had been subsequently substituted for the one
written in the examination centre and in that event there would be no question
of the invigilators noticing the use of unfair means at the time of using the
same in the examination hall. In this background of facts, we are of the
opinion that the decision of the Commission in cancelling the answer paper C
of respondent No.I and the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in
this regard cannot at all be faulted with. In our view, it is true that there ~s
some delay in issuing the show-cause notice. The delay also, in our opinion,
cannot at all be faulted with. Things which may go unnoticed at one point
of time may be noticed subsequently and the same delay in noticing the
contumacious act at a later stage cannot at all be termed as illegal. The D
Commission is entrusted with the task of conducting examinations for the
very many public services under the State and the Commission is conducting
examinations and interviews for lakhs and lakhs of people every year. While.
undertaking this process, the delay may occur due to various unavoidable
reasons and at the same time this Court cannot close its eyes for the actions E
initiated by the Commission of the grave charges levelled against respondent
No.1 herein though belatedly. Respondent No. I was given ample opportunity
to submit his explanation and the Commission after considering the entire
materials decided to cancel the answer-sheet of the General Knowledge Paper ·
of the said examination and also to debar respondent No.1 from the said
examination. F
Rule I5 A of the Bihar Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Bihar
Junior Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 195 I is set out below:

"ISA. If any candidate is found guilty of -
G
(i) resorting to any irregular or improper means for obtaining
admission to the examination; or
(ii) impersonating another candidate or being impersonated by any
person at the written or viva voce examination; or
(iii) submitting fabricated document or documents which have been a
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP.' 2 S.C.R.

A tampered with; or
(iv) making statements which are incorrect or false; or suppressing
material information; or
(v) communication with any person for the purpose of getting help
, or for aiding any other candidate; or
B
(vi) using any other unfair means in the examination hall; or
(vii) unruly behaviour in the examination hall or violating any
instruction issued by the Commission;

he may be expelled from the examination hall by the Commission or
c by any person authori~ed by the~ in this behalf. In such cases, the
Commission may also invalidate his. answer books or deduct such
marks as they consider fit and in addition to rendering himself liable
to criminal prosecution, the candidate may be debarred either
permanently or for a specified period
D (a) 11>by the Commission from admission to any examination or
appearance at any interview held by the Commission for selection
of candidates; and
(b) by the State Government from employment under Government."

E It is clear from the perusal of the said rule that the Commission is
entitled to initiate action against any candidate if the candidate is found
guilty of resorting to any irregular or improper means for obtaining admission
to the examination or using any other unfair means in the examination hall
(clause vi) if any candidate is found guilty he may be expelled from the
examination hall or the Commission may also invalidate his answer-books or
F may debar the said candidate either permanently or for a specified period.
The Division Bench in their judgment while interpreting the above rule has.
observed that there was no allegation against respondent No. I of adoption
of any unfair means in the course of examination and the Commission after
two years of publication of the result initiated action against respondent No.
G I. The interpretation given by the Division Bench of the rule is not correct.
Clause (iii) of the Rules specifically provides that if a candidate is found
guilty of submitting fabricated document or documents, which have been
tampered with or as provided in Clause (vi) found to have used any other
unfair means in the examination hall, he can be dealt with appropriately
under the Rules.
H
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. V.K. SINGH [LAKSHMANAN, J .] 227

A perusal of the show cause notice issued to respondent No. I in Memo A
No. 56/P.S.C./C.C.E. dated 12.08.1985 clearly go to show that the charge
against respondent No. 1 was for adoption of unfair means in the 3 lst
Combined Competitive Examination. We have already extracted the charges
against respondent No. I. By issuing the said show-cause notice an opportu1;iity
was given to respondent No. I to offer his explanation with regard to the
charges. The proceedings dated 22.09. I986 (annexure-2) clearly reveal that B
the explanation offered by respondent No.I dated I5.04.I986 with regard to
the charges had· been considered in detail by the Commission and the
Commission after due consideration has decided to cancel the answer-sheet
of the General Knowledge Paper and also decided to treat respondent No. I
as debarred from the said examination. The Authorities of the Commissi'on C
have, in our opinion, acted within the four comers of the rules, regulations
and executive instructions. They have adhered to the rule of law. The Divisii;m
Bench has characterized the entire exercise by the Commission in cancelling
the respondent's examination as vitiated by illegality and proceduriil
impropr!ety. We are unable to appreciate the above observation made by the
Division Bench. In our opinion, the Courts can certainly examine whether the D
decision making process was reasonable, rationale and not arbitrary on the
facts and circumstances in each case. There has been· no infirmity in the
decision making process by the Commission. We, therefore, hold that the
impugned action initiated by the Commission in cancelling the examination
of respondent No. I and debarring him is well-founded and calls for n6 E
interference. The grievance of respondent No. I that he was not allowed to
see the answer-books of other candidates in the concerned subject nor tht'.
specimen signature of the Invigilators of that centre were produced before the
Court are shown to the first respondent. In this regard, respondent No. I has
miserably failed to request the Division Bench to see the answer-books by
themselves and also permit him to peruse the same. Such a request made by F
Mr. M.N. Rao before us at this distance of time cannot at all be countenanced.

The appeal filed by the Commission stands allowed and the order of
the Division Bench is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.

NJ. Appeal allowed. G

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "service law"Sign in to search