LexCHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES DISTRICT, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. versus SURENDRA NATH PANDEY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 840 A CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES DISTRICT, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. v. SURENDRA NATH PANDEY AND ORS. B (Civil Appeal No. 9058 of 2011) c NOVEMBER 3, 2011 [ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: Promotion - Examination for promotion to the post of Junior Accounts Officers - Respondents appeared in the examination - Their result not declared on the ground of cancellation of their candidature for their D adopting unfair means in the examination which was detected at the time of evaluating the papers by the examiner - Constitution of Committee to submit report - Committee observed that the observation of the examiner was correct and all answers were taken from guide book used by candidates E in the examination which were not permitted to be taken into the examination centre - Single Judge of the High Court held that the appellants had failed to establish that respondents were guilty of mass-copying and were, therefore, obliged to intimate to the respondents the marks secured by them in the F examination; and directed appellants to consider them for promotion if successful in the examination and also awarded adhoc promotion to tne respondents - Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Single Judge and held that the respondent had been granted adhoc promotion which G wiped out all past alleged misconduct - On appeal, held: High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision taken by the appellants requiring the candidates, who appeared in the cancelled examination, to reappear in the subsequent examination, in order to qualify for regular promotion - r. 18 H 840 C.G .. M., CAL. TEL. DIST., B.S.N. v. SURENDRA NATH 841 PANDEY of Part I of the rules deals with the situation where' a candidate A is found or discovered to be using unfair means in the examination itself - It is only in these circumstances that the candidate has to be subjected to disciplinary proceeding which has to be conducted on the basis of the report submitted under r.14(4) - Since this was a case of mass- B copying, which was discovered only at the time of the review of the answer books, r. 18 would have no relevance - Merely because no disciplinary proceedings were Initiated against the respondents, it would not be justified to hold that the cancellation of the result was in any manner, impermissible c - The respondents were given equal opportunity to compete in the examination subsequent to the cancellation of their examination result - It is a matter of record that 42 candidates who were similarly placed took advantage of the order and appeared in the subsequent examination - They were 0 promoted in accordance with the rule to the next higher post - The respondents, however, chose not to appear in the examination - They cannot at this stage be permitted to complain that they have been treated unfairly- In view of that, the judgments of the High Court were not sustainable - The . procedure adopted by the appellants cannot be said to be E suffering from any such irrationality or unreasonableness, which would have enabled the High Court to interfere with the decision - Junior Accounts Officers Service Postal Wing (Group C) Recruitment Rules, 1977 - "· 14, 18. F ADMINISTRATIVELAW: Natural Justice - Purpose of - Held: The purpose of rules of natural justice is to ensure that the order causing civil consequences is not passed arbitrarily - It is not that in every case there must be an opportunity of oral hearing - The decisions taken by the G competent authority could be corrected provided it is .. established that the decision is so perverse that no sensible person, who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it - The said principle is based on the ground of iffationa/ity and is known as Wednesbury H 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Principle - The Court can interfere with a decision, if it is so absurd that no reasonable authority could have taken such a decision - Doctrines/Principles - Wednesbury Principle. The respondents were employees of the appellants. 8 They appeared in an examination for being promoted to Junior Accounts Officers. However, their results were not declared. The respondents requested for intimation of the marks secured by them which request was not accepted nor did the authoritie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.