RAM ABHILAKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Ram Abhilakh Singh seeks to quash the order dated 8-6-1987 passed by the Secretary, U. P. Public Service Com mission Allahabad (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) cancelling the result of the petitioner bearing Roll No. 17206 selected in the Group of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer Labour Communication Officer etc. which was published in daily newspaper Northern India Patirka, dated 21-4- 1987 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition ). 2 The petitioner's grievance is that ha was called for interview by res pondent No 2 U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad on 27-3-1987 alone with the certificates after he had qualified the examination. It is alleged that the petitioner was declared finally selected in the Group of Asstt. Regional Transport Officer, Labour Communication Officer etc. Later on, he happened to visit the office of U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad in the second week of August 1987 along with his cousin brother and after gathering the information from the notice-board of the office of the Commission, it was revealed that the result of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is said that it was surprise to him and thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition and described the order without reasons and without affording the opportunity to the petitioner of being heard before cancelling the result. The petitioner has further described the order as arbitrary. 3 The respondents filed counter affidavit and the relevant pleas are contained in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit. It is averred that the final result of the combined State Services Examination, 1985 was declared on April 18 1987 in which the petitioner had been shown among the successful candidates It is further averred that after declaration of the final result, it come to the notice of the Commission that a large number of eligible women candidates could not be called for personality test due to errors on the part of the data process section of the Commission including the tabulation sheet/merit list belonging to the posts of U. P. Educational Service (Women Branch ). Considering the magnitude of the errors involved, the Commission cancelled the result relating to the posts of U. P. Education Service (Women Branch) and proposed to hold a fresh examination for these posts. Due to the cancel lation of the results for the above posts, a women candidate i. e. Smt. Indira Singh, who was earlier allotted a post in the U. P. Educational Service (Women Branch) according to her first preference, had to be considered for post of her next preference in the allied group services for which she had qualified and stood higher in the merit list as compared to the petitioner. As a consequence of Smt. Indira Singh getting selected for a post in allied group of service, the result of petitioner Sri Ram Abhilakh Singh has been cancelled by the Com mission vide press communiqu No. C-70/l/c-l)/85-86, dated June 8, 1987 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) because he was the last candidate in the earlier list of the selected candidates as there was no longer any post against which the petitioner could be accommodated. It is further asserted that in terms of Article 320 (1) of the Constitution of India, the Commission is fully empowered to rectify the errors and also under clause 75 of the U. P. Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business; Rules, 1976. The Commission denied that arbitrariness has been shown in cancelling the result. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order of Commission can celling the result of the petitioner is arbitrary as it is devoid of reasons and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put the case regarding the cancel lation of the result. He has further submitted that since the natural principles of justice have not been observed, the order cancelling the result is vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no reasons have been given in the impugned order for cancelling the result, so the order is not sus tainable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Commission was justified in cancelling the result of the petitioner. 5. We are of the view that the writ petition of the petitioner is devoid of merits and h liable to be dismissed on the following reasonings : 6. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the principles of natural justice should have been followed for rectification or correction. The mistake occurred due to the failure of human machinery and proper data processing which could be rectified by the Commission, Later on in preparation of the result, such type of mistakes are bound to occur as human beings are liable to commit the mistake and nobody is perfect. The explanation of the Commission appears to be reasonable and plausible, The question of observing principles of natural justice do not arise at all. The administrative order does not involve evil consequences, The principles of natural justice involve fair hearing. If the action of the adminis trative authority is fair and reasonable and the same is not irrational or illegal ex fade, DO question of observing natural justice arises. In that eventuality there would be collapse of administrative machinery. It does not appeal to our mind that what sort of opportunity the petitioner was to be afforded in the light of the explanation given by the Commission regarding the correction. The matter was still in the process of selection and during that selection process, if some mistake is revealed, the authority has right to correct it. The petitioner has also failed to show that there was no fault. The petitioner has not made representation to the Commission regarding the cancellation of the result. However, the result of the representation would have the same as explained in the counter-affidavit. It has been observed in Constitutional and Administrative Law by Stanley De' Saaith and Rodney Brazier, Mew Edition Penguin Books, 1990 at page 562 that as the remedies available to those who allege a breach of natural justice are discretionary, the courts may refuse a remedy despite a breach of natural justice, because in the circumstances it is felt that there is no merit in the applicant's case or it is clear that even if natural justice had been scrupulously observed the applicant would still have not the same fate. The said observation was made in the case of Glynn v. University of Keele reported in (1971) 1 WLR 487. Thus the submission of Dr. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the reason given for cancelling the result is not substantiated also lacks force as the administrative order do not require reasons as expected from the tribunal or by the quashi Judicial authority. 7. We may also add that the petitioner has no right to be anally select ed even if his name is included in the merit list. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shankarsan Dasu v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 that: "it cannot be said that if a number of vacancies are notified for ap pointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. " 8. In the result, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .