LexEAST COAST RAILWAY & ANR. ETC. versus MAHADEV APPA RAO & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [201 O] 7 S.C.R 908 EAST COAST RAILWAY & ANR. ETC. v. MAHADEV APPA RAO & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4964 of 2010 etc.) JULY 7, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Administrative Law: c Judicial review - Order of administrative authority - Canceling typewriting test without assigning reasons - HELD: An order passed by a public authority must be judged by reasons stated in the order or the record contemporaneously maintained - Application of mind by the authority is best 0 disclosed by recording reasons in support of the order - Absence of reasons in the order or the contemporaneous record is suggestive of the order being arbitrary - High Court rightly set aside the order by which the typewriting test was cancelled - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 E - Servici~ Law. Service Law: Appointment - Cancellation of typewriting test - Challenged by successful candidate - HELD: Although no F candidate acquires an indefeasible right to a post merely because he has appeared in the examination or even found a place in the select list, yet State does not enjoy an unqualified prerogative to refuse an appointment in an arbitrary fashion or to disregard the merit of the candidates G as reflected in the merit list - The candidates who had appeared in the test and were otherwise eligible for appointment were entitled to ensure that selection process was not allowed to be scuttled for ma/a fide reasons or in an arbitrary manner - Validity of such decision is not beyond H 908 EAST COAST RAILWAY & ANR. ETC. v. MAHt1-DEV 909 APPA RAO & ORS. ' judicial review - Judicial review - Constitution of India, 1950 A - Articles 14 and 16 - Locus standi. The appellant-organization held a typewriting test on 30.10.2006 for the posts of Chief Typists, and its result was announced on 22.11.2006. On a representation made 8 by some of the unsuccessful candidates, the test was cancelled by order dated 14.12.2006. The said order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. A fresh typewriting test was held on 16.12.2006. However, result of the second test was not declared. The Tribunal C upheld the order dated 14.12.2006. But, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal as also the order dated 14.12.2006 and directed the employers to proceed with the selection process as per the first test conducted on 30.10.2006. Aggrieved, the employers as also some of the candidates filed the appeals. D Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes at arbitrariness which is an anti thesis of the E guarantee contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Whether or not the cancellation of the typing test was arbitrary is a question which the Court shall have to examine once a challenge is mounted to any such action. [para 15] [919-E-G] 1.2 There is no precise statutory or other definition of the term "arbitrary". Arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order F is only one of them. Application of mind is best disclosed G by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. An order passed by a public \authority exercising administrative/executive or statutory powers must be judged by the reasons stated in the order or any record or file contemporaneously maintained. The H 910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A infirmity arising out of the absence of reasons cannot be cured by the authority passing the order stating such reasons in an affidavit filed before the court where the validity of any such order is under challenge. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or B in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary and, therefore, legally unsustainable. In the instant case, the order passed by the competent authority or the contemporaneous record or file does not state any c reasons whatsoever for cancellation of the typing test. D Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the authority properly applied its mind before passing the order cancelling the test. [para 18, 20 and 21] [920-F-G; 922-C- G] Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji 1952 SCR 135 = AIR 1952 SC 16; Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. 1978 (2) SCR 272 = (
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.