KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. ETC. versus B. M. VIJAYA SHANKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 14-02-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. ETC . 
\'. 
• 
B.M. VIJAYA SH4NKAR AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 14, 1992 
B 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, KULDIP SINGH AND R. M. 
SAHA!, JJ.j 
Se11•ice La....-Kamataka Public Se11•ice Commission-Recmitment to 
c 
State Civil Se11>ice-Competitive Examinations-General lnstn1ctio11s (I) 
(XII) and (Xll/J-l11stnictio11s to candidates not to write Roll Numbers 
~ 
anywlrcre in tire Answer Slrcet except 011 the space provided 011 tire fro/II 
pag<-Breach of i11stmctio11 by some candidates-Non-evaluation of answer 
sheets by Commission-Action of Commission held not arbitrary-Failure to 
provide !rearing opponwrity to candidates held 1101 violative of natural jus-
D ti cc-Directions given to grant relaxation in age and d1a11ce to avail. 
Natural justice-Rule of heari11g-Exceptio11~ule is constnted strictly 
in academic disciplines-It should be constmed more strictly in competitive 
exanJinations. 
...... 
E 
The Karnataka Public Service Commission conducted competitive 
examinations for the State Civil Services. Clause (I) or the General In-
structions to the candidates provided that the candidates should write 
their roll number only on the front page ol' the answer books in the space 
provided for it and not anywhere else inside the answer sheet. Clause (xii) 
F 
provided that the candidates must abide by the instructions and clause 
(xiii) provided that failure to abide by the instructions will render them 
liable to expulsion from examination or such other punishment as the -, 
Commission may deem lit. Some of the candidates violated the instruc- ,,_ 
tions and entered their roll numbers inside the answer books. Consequent-
G 
ly their answer books were not got evaluated by the Commission. The 
candidates challenged the action of the Commission before the Karnataka 
Administrative Tribunal which directed the Commission to get their 
answer books evaluated by holding that (i) no penalty was provided for 
breach or the instructions and (ii) the failure of the Commission to afford 
any opportunity to the candidates to explain their bonafide and innocence 
H was arbitrary. Against the decision of the Tribunal the Commission and 
668 
., 
-
KAR,-.;ATAKA SERVICE CO\l\IISSION , .. VUAYASHANKAR 
669 
the State filed appeals in this Court. 
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this 
Court, 
A 
HELD: 1. The Tribunal faulted in inferring that no penalty was 
provided for breach of instructions requiring a candidate not to write his B 
role number inside the answer book. The expression 'such other punish-
ment as the Commission may deem lit to impose' in clause (xiii) of the 
General Instructions read with clause (xii) pro>ides action for breach of 
that which is, clearly specified. Provisions attempting to infuse discipline 
in competitive examinations cannot be construed with same yardstick as C 
a provisions in penal statutes. Direction not to write roll number was clear 
and explicit. Once it was violated the issue of honafide and honest mistake 
did not arise. [671C, G-H, 672A, 673D] 
1.1. However, the Commission did not impose any penalty on the 
candidates because neither their examination was cancelled nor were they D 
debarred from taking any examination conducted by the Commission. The 
only action taken was that those answer books in which roll number had 
been written inside were not subjected to evaluation. Therefore the action 
of the Commission could not be characterised as arbitmry. [672B-C] 
2. Natural justice is a concept which has succeeded in keeping the 
arbitrary action within limits and preserving the rule of law. But with all 
the religious rigidity ,;,ith which it should be observed, since it is ultimately 
weighed in balance of fairness, the courts have been circumspect in extend-
E 
ing it to situations where it would cause more injustice than justice. 
Absence of any expectation of bearing in matters which do not affect any F 
interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it 
would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would 
have been n1ore unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions 
to the rule of natural justice. [672F-H; 673C-DJ 
2.1. Even though the procedure of affording hearing is as important G 
as decision on merits yet urgency of the matter, or public interest at times 
require llexibility in application of the rule as the circumstances of the case 
and the nature of th .. mat

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