- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Hanuman Prasad And Others v. Union Of India And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
A notification dated 19-7-1994 invited applications for recruitment to 48 Group ‘C’ posts of Ticket Collectors in the Lucknow Division, carrying the pay scale of Rs 950-1500. Approximately 800 candidates sat for the examination and 106 of them were placed on the select list. The administration subsequently cancelled the entire list on the allegation that the question papers had been leaked and widespread malpractice had occurred.
The affected candidates challenged the cancellation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, in Original Application No. 959 of 1995. By order dated 15-7-1996, the Tribunal upheld the cancellation. The present special leave petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court assailing that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Divisional Manager, rather than the General Manager, was competent to cancel the select list.
- Whether the cancellation order was invalid for failing to state reasons.
- Whether the selected candidates were entitled to a pre-decisional hearing or other procedural protection based on a claim of legitimate expectation.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The Divisional Manager lacked authority to cancel the list; only the General Manager was competent.
- The cancellation order was defective because it stated no reasons, contrary to the principle set out in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner.
- Even if no vested right to appointment existed, the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that required the administration to give prior notice and an opportunity of hearing before cancelling the list, relying on Asha Kaul v. State of J&K.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. (1978) 1 SCC 405 | Administrative/quasi-judicial orders must contain reasons; reasons cannot later be supplied by affidavit. | The Court accepted the principle but found that, here, the record (including a CBI report) revealed the reasons, so the cancellation was not vitiated. |
| Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi (1991) 2 SCC 716 | An order cancelling an examination can be sustained if the record discloses mass malpractice, even if the order itself is brief. | Relied upon to uphold the cancellation because the CBI’s preliminary report evidenced malpractice. |
| Asha Kaul v. State of J&K (1993) 2 SCC 573; 24 ATC 576 | Selected candidates have no vested right but may have a legitimate expectation; cancellation without reasons was struck down in that case. | Distinguished; the instant cancellation followed an investigative report and therefore did not attract the ratio of Asha Kaul. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court addressed each of the petitioners’ contentions in turn:
- Competence of the Divisional Manager: The Court held that the Divisional Manager could act on behalf of the General Manager when duly authorised; hence the cancellation was within competence.
- Absence of stated reasons: Although the formal order was terse, the underlying record—including a preliminary CBI report confirming paper leakage and malpractice—supplied the requisite reasons. Citing Maharashtra State Board, the Court stated that reasons need not always appear on the face of the order if they are evident from the file.
- Legitimate expectation and opportunity of hearing: The Court reiterated that selection confers no vested right to appointment. In cases of mass copying, individual notice is unnecessary because no particular candidate is singled out; therefore, the principle in Asha Kaul did not mandate a prior hearing.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED – The special leave petition was rejected, and the Tribunal’s decision upholding cancellation of the select list stands affirmed.
Immediate consequence: the 1994 select list remains cancelled, clearing the way for the administration to conduct a fresh, fair examination. The judgment does not create new precedent but reinforces existing principles on (i) agency competence, (ii) sufficiency of recorded reasons in administrative orders, and (iii) limited procedural protections where mass malpractice is established.
Order
1. This special leave petition arises against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench made on 15-7-1996 in Original Application No. 959 of 1995. The admitted position is that for the recruitment to Group ‘C’ posts, a notification was issued on 19-7-1994 inviting applications for selection of 48 Ticket Collectors in Lucknow Division in the pay scale of Rs 950-1500. Out of 800 candidates who appeared in the examination, 106 candidates got place in the select list which 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 came to be challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order has upheld the cancellation. Thus, this special leave petition.
2. Shri Sanyal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, raised threefold contention. Firstly, the Divisional Manager was not the competent authority to cancel the select list, the General Manager being the competent authority. We find no force in the said contention. The Divisional Manager can also be authorised by the General Manager to discharge the function of the General Manager. Therefore, he could be said to have discharged the function of cancellation of the select list. It is then contended that since the order does not indicate any reasons, it is bad in law. In support thereof, he placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. (1978) 1 SCC 405, in particular, para 8 of the judgment. It is true that when an order is passed, be it administrative or quasi-judicial in nature, necessarily it would contain grounds or reasons for invalidating the action taken. The authorities cannot subsequently explain their actions by way of affidavit or otherwise. Therefore, this Court insisted upon the public orders made in exercise of the statutory power, should contain reasons and the order should contain the kind of action taken by them. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to substitute their actions or contents of orders by reference to any affidavits or other actions which did not find place in the order. In this case, the authorities simply cancelled the selection list. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S Gandhi (1991) 2 SCC 716, this Court had held that if the order cancelling the examination came to be passed, the record should indicate the reason, though order may not contain the reasons as indicated in para 21 of the judgment. In that case, it was held that the order did not contain the reasons but the record indicated the same. The administrative order cancelling the examination in which mass copying was alleged, was sustained.
3. It is seen that after the allegations were made that malpractices were committed, the matter was referred to CBI for enquiry. The CBI has submitted its preliminary report which indicated that the malpractices have been committed in writing the examination. They need not await the final report which would be to take further action against erring officers. Therefore, it is a case where the authorities have taken the decision on the basis of the report submitted by the investigating agency, containing proof in support of the allegations of malpractice committed in writing the examination. It cannot, therefore, be said that the order of cancellation does not contain any reasons.
4. It is then contended that though the selected candidates have no vested right, they had got a legitimate expectation for appointment when they were selected for being appointed. They should be given prior opportunity and also know the reasons for cancellation. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on para 8 of the judgment of this Court in Asha Kaul v. State of J&K (1993) 2 SCC 573, (1993) 24 ATC 576. It is unexceptionable that when duly constituted selection committee makes recommendation for appointment of the selected candidates the candidates do not get any vested right or legitimate expectation until they are appointed according to the Rules; they have a chance to be appointed as they have been selected by the recruitment agency. In that case, the Government had cancelled the select list without any reasons. This Court has laid the above rule in that backdrop. The ratio therein has no application for the reason that after the perusal of the report submitted by the investigating agency, the competent authority had cancelled the selection so that the regular and proper examination could be conducted giving opportunity to everyone in a fair manner. No prior opportunity need be given in the case of mass copying. It is not the case where a named candidate committed copying. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal.
5. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Alert