CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA RAILWAY RECT. BOARD & ANR. versus K. SHYAM KUMAR.& ORS.

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 06-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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_ 
. 
B 
[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: re-
test 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 
7· 
/ 
·/~ 
292 
SUPREME COURT REP<?BTS 
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 
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. T~e 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. 
CHAIRMAN, ALL INDIA RAILWAY RECT. BOARD v. K. 293 
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 d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.