Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) To judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory discretion, normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improprieties or was one which no sensible decision-maker could, on the material before him and within the framework of the law, have arrived at. The court would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or whether the action was not bona fide. The court would also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse. The court would not however go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator amongst the various alternatives open to him. Nor could the court substitute its decision to that of the administrator. This is the Wednesbury8 test (2) The court would not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational - in the sense that it was in outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. The possibility of other tests, including proportionality being brought into English administrative law in future is not ruled out. These are the CCSU9 principles.

24. Where the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden, was held in Taylor v. Taylor 1876 (1) Ch. D 426 and this view has been followed by Indian Courts in a series of cases. In Ram Phal (supra) the dispute was as to which one of two persons was nominated by the Congress party. Relying on paras 13 and 13A of the symbols order, it was held that they lay down exhaustive and complete procedure for determining whether a candidate has been set up by a party or not. In Marathawada University (supra) it was held that it is a settled principle that when the act prescribes a particular body to exercise the power, it must be exercised only by that body and it cannot be exercised by the others, unless it is delegated and the law must also provide for such delegation. In this matter a Deputy registrar was required to discharge the duty of controller of examination. Bills raised for the printing work done during the annual examination were not cleared immediately and so an inquiry was set up. Executive council which also had Vice Chancellor, made certain observations against the Deputy Registrar, however, another committee gave a complete clean chit to him. Later on the Vice-Chancellor, instead of executive council, directed a departmental inquiry which action was subsequently ratified by the executive council. It was held that the act of the Vice-Chancellor was without any authority and the defect could not be cured by subsequent ratification. In Indian Railway Construction Company (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that the Court will be slow to interfere in matters relating to administrative functions unless decision is tainted by any vulnerability like illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. In State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (supra) it was held that judicial review under Article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. It was held that when an authority hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires. Such an interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority.

39. The charges stipulated against the petitioner have already been detailed hereinbefore in earlier paras as well as the replies to the show cause notices which were given to him. The petitioner was also given the copies of the subject experts after the show cause notice dated 23rd February, 2006.

40. In the show cause notices dated 23rd February, 2006, it was specifically brought to the notice of the petitioner that mobile phones were recovered from Mr.Anshul Aggarwal and Mr. Somiya Aggarwal and the examination of these candidates was cancelled and they were asked to leave the examination hall immediately. Mr. Anshul Aggarwal had also disclosed to the Centre Superintendent about answer keys consisting of a set of numerals for questions Nos. 168 to 179. It was categorically stipulated in the show cause notice that this circumstance has created a serious doubt about the use of unfair means by other candidates. It was subsequently on account of bunching of marks another pattern was revealed and still later on comparison of other OMRs and the answers, the similarities in the answers especially in the wrong answers and the questions not attempted and same wrong option for the wrong answer and substantial number of same correct answers, it transpired that it would have been possible on account of use of unfair means in the examinations. The case of the respondents is not that Anshul Aggarwal and Somiya Aggarwal from whom the mobile phones were recovered had communicated the same to the petitioner directly. In the case of petitioner, it has not been possible to get the direct evidence of communication of answer digits on the mobile phone and in the absence of direct evidence the other evidence which is his attempt to erase the written material from his QPB, the comparison of the QPBs of different candidates, his performance in solving 30 questions given to him and the evidence regarding his performance in other competitive examinations i.e his ranking in AIEEE, 2005 conducted by Central Board of secondary Education was 101125 and in GGSIP, 2005 conducted by Guru Gobind Singh Inderprastha University was 15009 whereas in CEE it was 24, have been considered. Whether this evidence in the absence of direct evidence was material and relevant? What is also to be seen is whether the enquiry which has been conducted by the respondents is fair and had afforded adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend themselves and the inferences drawn by the EDC and respondents are not based on surmises and conjectures and decision does not suffer from procedural improprieties.

48. Under the relevant Ordinance the respondents are entitled to impose a maximum penalty of debarment from examinations for a period of five years. The respondents are invested with the discretion to impose proper punishment keeping in view the magnitude and amplitude of the misconduct. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Anshul Aggarwal and Somiya Aggarwal from whom the mobile phones were recovered, only their examination has been cancelled as the examination papers was taken from them and they went out of the examination hall and thereafter nothing has been done against them whereas against the petitioner not only examinations for CEE, 2005 has been cancelled but he has been further debarred for a period of five years from 2005. This is not disputed that the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is to be imposed by the concerned authorities and this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India will not interfere with the same as the role of the Court is only secondary and what is to be seen is whether the authorities have acted illegally or have taken relevant factors into consideration and whether the view taken by the authorities is such which no reasonable person could have taken. In view of the substantial evidence before the respondents, it cannot be held that they have acted illegally or has omitted relevant factors into consideration. The petitioner did not admit his guilt and use of unfair means could be inferred by detailed investigation and effort. The case of the petitioner is therefore, not the same as that of two persons from whom the mobile phones were recovered and whose examination was cancelled. Though some variations in the show cause notice have been pointed out and also some variations in the performance of the petitioner, however, that does not reflect any procedural impropriety or such an illegality which must be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in consonance with a few precedents which have been discussed herein above. The petitioner is unable to point out which other relevant matters have not been taken into account and what irrelevant matters have been taken into account to draw the inference as has been drawn by the EDC and the respondents. In my opinion, the decision of EDC cannot be termed absurd or perverse nor it will be appropriate to substitute different inferences with the inference drawn by EDC even though theoretically some other inferences may be drawn, which have not been drawn by this Court in the present facts and circumstances.