KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. ETC.versusB. M. VIJAYA SHANKAR AND ORS.

A    KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. ETC .
                                        \'.

                     B.M. VIJAYA SH4NKAR AND ORS.
                                                                                  •
                              FEBRUARY 14, 1992

B
           [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, KULDIP SINGH AND R. M.
                            SAHA!, JJ.j


        Se11•ice La....-Kamataka Public Se11•ice Commission-Recmitment to
  State Civil Se11>ice-Competitive Examinations-General lnstn1ctio11s (I)
c (XII) and (Xll/J-l11stnictio11s to candidates not to write Roll Numbers           ~
  anywlrcre in tire Answer Slrcet except 011 the space provided 011 tire fro/II
  pag<-Breach of i11stmctio11 by some candidates-Non-evaluation of answer
  sheets by Commission-Action of Commission held not arbitrary-Failure to
  provide !rearing opponwrity to candidates held 1101 violative of natural jus-
D ticc-Directions given to grant relaxation in age and d1a11ce to avail.
          Natural justice-Rule of heari11g-Exceptio11~ule is constnted strictly
    in academic disciplines-It should be constmed more strictly in competitive


E
    exanJinations.
                                                                                   ......
           The Karnataka Public Service Commission conducted competitive
    examinations for the State Civil Services. Clause (I) or the General In-
    structions to the candidates provided that the candidates should write
    their roll number only on the front page ol' the answer books in the space
    provided for it and not anywhere else inside the answer sheet. Clause (xii)
F   provided that the candidates must abide by the instructions and clause
    (xiii) provided that failure to abide by the instructions will render them
    liable to expulsion from examination or such other punishment as the          ,,_-,
    Commission may deem lit. Some of the candidates violated the instruc-
    tions and entered their roll numbers inside the answer books. Consequent-
    ly their answer books were not got evaluated by the Commission. The
G candidates challenged the action of the Commission before the Karnataka
    Administrative Tribunal which directed the Commission to get their
    answer books evaluated by holding that (i) no penalty was provided for
    breach or the instructions and (ii) the failure of the Commission to afford
    any opportunity to the candidates to explain their bonafide and innocence
H   was arbitrary. Against the decision of the Tribunal the Commission and
                                       668                                         .,
             KAR,-.;ATAKA SERVICE CO\l\IISSION ,.. VUAYASHANKAR                  669

    the State filed appeals in this Court.                                              A

-        Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this
    Court,

          HELD: 1. The Tribunal faulted in inferring that no penalty was
    provided for breach of instructions requiring a candidate not to write his          B
    role number inside the answer book. The expression 'such other punish-
    ment as the Commission may deem lit to impose' in clause (xiii) of the
    General Instructions read with clause (xii) pro>ides action for breach of
    that which is, clearly specified. Provisions attempting to infuse discipline
    in competitive examinations cannot be construed with same yardstick as              C
    a provisions in penal statutes. Direction not to write roll number was clear
    and explicit. Once it was violated the issue of honafide and honest mistake
    did not arise. [671C, G-H, 672A, 673D]

          1.1. However, the Commission did not impose any penalty on the
    candidates because neither their examination was cancelled nor were they            D
    debarred from taking any examination conducted by the Commission. The
    only action taken was that those answer books in which roll number had
    been written inside were not subjected to evaluation. Therefore the action
    of the Commission could not be characterised as arbitmry. [672B-C]

          2. Natural justice is a concept which has succeeded in keeping the            E
    arbitrary action within limits and preserving the rule of law. But with all
    the religious rigidity ,;,ith which it should be observed, since it is ultimately
    weighed in balance of fairness, the courts have been circumspect in extend-
    ing it to situations where it would cause more injustice than justice.
    Absence of any expectation of bearing in matters which do not affect any            F
    interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it
    would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would
    have been n1ore unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions
    to the rule of natural justice. [672F-H; 673C-DJ

          2.1. Even though the procedure of affording hearing is as important           G
    as decision on merits yet urgency of the matter, or public interest at times
    require llexibility in application of the rule as the circumstances of the case
    and the nature of th.. matter required to be dealt may serve interest of
    justice better by den~ing opportunity of hearing and permitting the person
    concerned to challenge the order itself on merits not for lack of hearing to        H
    670                     SIJPREME COl!RT REPORTS              [1992] I S.C.R.

A   establish bonafide or innocence but for being otherwise arbitrary or
    against rules. [672G-Hl

         2.2. Rule of hearing has been construed strictly in academic dis·
    ~iplines.It should be construed more strictly in such cases where an
    examinee is competing for Civil Service post. Present case can safely be
B   placed in a category where natural justice before taking any action stood
    excluded as it did not involve any misconduct or punishment. Therefore
    the Tribunal in issuing the directions approached the matter technically
    and completely misdirected itself in this regard. [673E-F, 673H, 673G]

          CIVIL APPEALLTE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 369-393
c   of 1991.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.1990 of the Karnataka
    Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, in Application Nos. 875, 4243, 4632,
    1978 to 1980, 2974, 676, 677, 4483, 1499, 2022, 1500, 2023, 3357, 1865, 1781,
D   1684, 3484, 3479, 2724, 2080, 3926, 4113, 4279, 3527 and 4553 of 1990.

                               WITH

          Civil Appeal Nos. 825-826 and 394-397 of 1991.

E         R.N. Narsimhamurthy, E.C. Vidyasagar, M. Veerappa, Kh. Nobin
    Singh, Ms. Kiran Suri, P.P. Tripathi, N.S. Das Bahl, Ms. Lalitha Kaushik,
    S.K. Kulkarni, Sury Kant, D.B. Vohra and L.R. Singh for the appearing
    parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
        R.M. SAHAI, J. Does the rule of natural justice has no exception?
  Is denial of opportunity of hearing, in every circumstance, arbitrary? The
  State of Karnataka am.I the Public Service Commission. through these
  appeals, seek answer to these questions. They are aggrieved by directions,
  issued by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, to get the answer books
G of candidates evaluated who in the competitive examinations conducted by
  the commission for the State Civil Service for categories 'A' and 'B' post,
  were guilty .of writing their roll numbers not only on the front page of the
  answer books, in the space pro,ided for it, but ·even at other places in
  disregard of instructions issued by the Commission. Basis for the direction
H was failure of the Commission to afford any opportunity to the candidates
     KAR.'\ATAKA SERVICE COMMISSIO~ 1•. VUAYA SHANKAR [SAi l.·\I. J.I (171


 lo explain their bonafide and innocence therefore it was arbitrary and it · · A
 entailed grave consequences for those who were aspirants for entering into
 public service.

         Power and authority of the Commi>Sion to hold examinations, regu-
  late its working and functioning, take action against erring candidates guilty
  of misconduct are all provided for by the rules and ·instructions issued in       B
. exercise of power conferred by the statutes. The claim of the candidates
  that they did not vest any right in the Commission to take such action was
  negatived by the tribunal. But it faulted in inferring that no penalty was
  provided for breach of instructions requiring ·a candidate not to write his
  roll number inside the answer book. Relevant clause ( 1) of the Instructions      c
  to Candidates is extracted below:

             "Before commencing your ansv·1ers please write your register
             number and other particulars in the space provided above. Do
             not \Vrilc your name or register number or sign an~where in
             the answer hook or on any loose sheets, such as prccis sheets,         D
              maps, graph papers, i.;tc."

        It is not disputed and it was found, even, by the tribunal that it was
 printed on the first page or evi..:ry~ ans,ver book. Its ohservancc \Vas man-
 datory and its disregard was punishable is clear from instruction (xii) and . E
 (xiii) of General Instructions lo the candidates which are extracted below:

             "(xii) The candidates must abide hy such instructions as may
             he specified on the cover of the answer book or any further
             instructions which may be given by the Supervisor/Invigilator
             of the Examination.                                                    F

             (xiii) If the candidates fail to do s<> <>r indulge in disorderly or
             improper conduct, they will render themselves liable to expul-
             sion rrorn examination and/or such other punishmenl as Lhc
             Commission may _deem fit to impose."
                                                                                    G
        Is the expression, 'such other punishment as the comm1ss1on may
 deem fit to in1pose' vague and thus arbitrary? We do. not think so. Read
 with clause (xii) it presents no difficulty. It provides action for breach of
 that \Vhich i~. clearly, spccilic<l. IL cannot he characll!rised as vague. And
 thc:n any capricious exercise of pc)\ver can always be assailed. f\.1ore in1por~   I-1
    672                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1992] 1 S.C.R.

A   tant than this is that provisions attempting to infuse discipline in competi-
    tive examinations to be conducted by the Commission cannot be construed
    with same yardstick as a provision in penal statutes. Moreover the Com-
    mission did not impose any penalty on the candidates. Their examination
    was not cancelled nor they were debarred from taking any examination
    conducted by the Commission for that year or any year, in future. Their
B
    marks in papers, other than those in which they were found to have acted
    in disregard of instructions were declared. The only action taken was that
    those answer books in which roll numhers had been written inside were
    not subjected to evaluation. In our opinion there was nothing, basically,
    wrong in it. The Commission did not treat it as misconduct. The action
C   could not be termed as arbitrary. Nor it was abuse of power which could
    be corrected by judicial review.

           Such instructions are issued to ensure fairness in the examination. In
    the fast deteriorating standards of hone;t v and morality in the society the
D   insistence by the Commission that no attempt should be made of identifica-
    tion of the candidate by writing his roll number anywhere is in the larger
    public interest. It is well known that the first page of the answer book on
    which roll number is written is removed and a fictitious code number is
    provided to rule out any effort of any approach to the examiner. Not that
    a candidate who has written. his roll number would have approached the
E   examiner. He may have committed a ho11afide mistake. But that is not
    material. What was attempted to be achieved by the instruction was to
    minimise any possibility or chance of any abuse. Larger public interest
    demands insistence of observance of instruction rather than its breach.

F        Was natural justice violated ? Natural justice is a concept which has
  succeeded in keeping the arbitrary actilln within limits and preserving the
  rule of law. But with all the religious rigidity with which it should be
' observed, since it is ultimately weighed in balance of fairness, the courts
  have been circumspect in extending it to situations where it would cause
  more injustice than justice. Even though the procedure of affording hearing
G is as important as decision on merits yet urgency of the matter, or public
  interest at times require flexibility in application of the rule as the cir-
  cumstances of the case and the nature of the matter required to be dealt
  may serve interes( of justice better by denying opportunity of hearing and
  permitting the person concerned to challenge the order itself on merits not
H for lack of hearing to establish bonafide or innocence but for being other-
   KARNATAKA SERVICE COMMISSION"· VIJAYA SllANKAR (SAHA!. J.J 673


wise arbitrary or against rules. Present is a case which, in our opinion! can        A
safely be placed in a category where natural justice before taking any action
stood excluded as it did not involve any misconduct or punishment.

        Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Com-
mission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public
                                                                                     B
interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited
strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not
affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one,
where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which
would kave been more unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised
exceptions to the rule of natural justice. It cannot be equated with where           c
a student is found copying in the examination or an inference arises against
him for copying due to similarity in answers of number of other candidates.
or he is charged with misconduct or misbehaviour. Direction not to write
roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every
answer book. Once it was violated the issue of bonafide and honest mistake
                                                                                     D
did not arise. Its consequences, even, if not provided did not make any
difference in law. The 3ction coul<l not be characterised as arbitrary. It was
not denial of equal opportunity. The reverse may be true. The tribunal
appears lo have been swayed by principles applied by this Court where an
cxamincc is found copying or using unfair means in the examination. But
in doing so the tribunal ignored a vital distinction that there may be cases         E
whc.rc ·the right of hearing may be excluded by the very nature of the power
or absence of any expectation that the hearing shall be afforded. Rule of
hearing has been construed strictly in academic disciplines. It should be
construed more strictly in such cases where an examinee is competing for
Ci,il Service post. The very nature of the competition requires that it
should be fair, above board and must infuse confidence. If this is ignored
then, as slated earlier, it is not only against public interest but it also erodes
the social sense of equality. The tribunal in issuing directions approached
the matter technically and has attempted to make out much where it would
have been better part of discretion to refuse lo interfere. The tribunal
completely misdirected itself in this regard. In our opinion its order cannot        G
be maintained.


      Before concluding we express our unhappiness on the letter of First
member of the Public Service Commission sent to this Court that the
Special Leave Petitions were filed without authority against the decision of         H
    674                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1992J l S.C.R.

A   the Commission hy the Chairman and the Secretary. We do not make any
    comment on it but we shall be failin~ in our duty if we do not place it on
    record that but for the action of the Chairman and the Secretary incalcul-
    able harm would have been caused to the institution.

        In the result these appeals succeed and are allowed. The order
B passed by the tribunal is set aside. The claim petition filed by the can-
    didates shall stand dismissed, except to the extent indicated below.

           Claim petitions were allowed on 13th September 1990. Nearly one         Jlllll
    and half years have elapsed since then. Many of the candidates might not       ""J
    have availed of their chance in the meantime. They might have become
c   over age. Therefore, we consider it necessary to direct that the Commission
    shall grant relaxation of age and of chance to be availed, if there is any
    restriction in this regard, to those candidates whose answer books were not
    evaluated for the reason that they had violated the instructions and entered
    their roll numbers inside the answer books. We were informed that there
D   were large number of such candidates. Therefore, this decision will apply
    to respondents as well as others who appeared in the examination. Relaxa-
    tion shall be for one chance only to be availed of in the next examination.

          The appeal nos. 394-397/91 have been liled by the selected can-
    didates. Since the appeal of the Commission has been allowed it is not
E   necessary to pass any order in these appeals. They shall stand disposed of
    accordingly.

          Parties shall bear their own costs.

    T.N.A.                                                    Appeals allowed.