LexGOHIL VISHVARAJ HANUBHAI & OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 401 GOHIL VISHVARAJ HANUBHAI & OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS (Civil Appeal Nos. 5680-83of2017) APRIL 28, 2017 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) Administrative law - Administrative action - Judicial review A B - Power of - On facts, complaint of large scale malpractices in the entire examination process to the post of Revenue Talati - Issuance C of Government resolution cancelling the recruitment process and Government deciding to conduct fresh examination - Challenge to - High Court held that the GR not illegal and arbitrary - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Impugned action not vitiated by lack of nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the State, by herding all the candidates, those who had resorted to D malpractice and others who did not, at the examination together - Innocent candidates including the wrong doers still get an opportunity of participating in the fresh examination process to be conducted by the State - Identifying all the candidates who are guilty of malpractice either by criminal prosecution or even by an administrative enqui1y is a time consuming process - If identijication E of the wrong doers was a must and had to be eliminated from the selection process, and until such identification is completed the process cannot be carried on, it would result in a great inconvenience to the administration as also loss of time to the innocent candidates - Judicial review. Doctrines/Principles - Principle of Wednesbury s unreasonableness - Held: A decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided F could have arrived at it. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Normally while exercising the power of judicial review, the Courts would only examine the decision making process of the administrative authorities but not the decision 401 H 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A itself. [Para 201[410-GI Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K Shyam Kumar [20101 6 SCR 291 : (2010) 6 SCC 614; Sterling Computers Ltd. v. MN. Publications Ltd. [19931 1 SCR 81 : (1993) 1 SCC 445; State of A.P. v. P. V. B Hanumantha Rao [20031 4 Suppl. SCR 736 : (2003) 10 sec 121 - referred to. 1.2 Purity of the examination process-whether such examination process pertains to assessment of the academic accomplishment or suitability of candidates for employment under c the State-is an unquestionable requirement of the rationality of any examination process. Rationality is an indispensable aspect of public administration under the Constitution. The authority of the State to take appropriate measures to maintain the purity of any examination process is unquestionable. Where there are allegations of the occurrence of large scale malpractices in the D course of the conduct of any examination process, the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel the examination. This Court has approved the action of the State or its instrumentalities to cancel examinations whenever such action is believed to be necessary on the basis, ~f some reasonable material to indicate E that the examination process is vitiated. They are also not obliged to seek proof of each and every fact which vitiated the examination process. [Para 221 [411-C-E; 412-AI Ramona Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Others [19791 3 SCR 1014 : (1979) F 3 SCC 489; Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey [19941 1 Suppl. SCR 750 : (1994) 5 sec 663; Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board v .. K Shyam Kumar [2010] 6 SCR 291 : (2010) 6 SCC 614; Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others [20161 G H 7 SCR 822 : (2016) 7 SCC 615 - referred to. 1.3 There were allegations of large sĀ«;ale tampering with the examination process. Scrutiny of the answer sheets (OMR) revealed that there were glaring aberrations which provide prima facie proof of the occurrence of a large scale tampering of the examination process. Denying power to the State from taking GOHlL VlSHVARAJ HANUBHAl & OTHERS v. STATE OF 403 GUJARAT & OTHERS appropriate remedial actions in such circumstances on the ground A that the State did not establish the truth of those allegations in accordance with the rules of evidence relevant for the proof of facts in a Court of Jaw (either in a criminal or a civil proceeding), wou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.