RANVIR SINGH Vs. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Ranvir Singh who claims to be outstanding student having brilliant academic record of his credit, being first divisioner throughout takes strong exception to orders Annexures P-5 and P-6 dated 10/05/1991 and 10/06/1991 vide which his candidature for Combined Defence Service Examination October, 1990 held by the Union Public Service Commission was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing in all the examinations that were to be held by the Union Public Service Commission for a period of five years with effect from 4/04/1991 on the allegations that he had unauthorisedly taken away the Text Booklet along with the answer sheet of Elementary Mathematics Paper from the Examination Hall. Admittedly the aforesaid decision as per Annexures P/5 and P/6 was passed upon the report made by the Invigilator/Supervisor who conducted the examination at the centre where the petitioner had taken his examinations.

(2.) Brief facts of the case go to show that the petitioner applied to the Union Public Service Commission so as to compete in the Combined Defence Service Examination which was to be held in October 1990. In preceding examination for Combined Defence Service as well, the petitioner had appeared and was declared successful and he was, waiting for the interview. It is only because the examination of October 1990 came in between the examination cleared by the petitioner and the interview that he had to apply again. The case of the petitioner is that he had appeared in the papers of General Knowledge, English and Mathematics in the month of October, 1990 and had performed very well in all the papers and was, therefore, quite hopeful that he will get through the said examination as he was able to get through in the earlier examination as well. After taking the examination in October, 1990, he also appeared in the interview that was conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in November, 1990 but could not clear the same and was, therefore, not in the list of successful candidates. However, in the result of examination held in October, 1990, he found to his dismay that he was shown having failed. The result was declared on 6/02/1991. Not believing the result that he was confronted with on 6/02/1991, he made a request on 7/02/1991, without losing any time for rechecking of the result as he was confidant that being one of the toppers in his academic career, he could not have failed. The request made by him as per Annexure P/1 reads as under :-

(3.) On 28/04/1990, i.e. after more than 2 1/2 months, the petitioner received letter (Annexure P/2) wherein it was mentioned that he had not handed over the Text Booklet as also the answer sheet of the Elementary Mathematics Paper to the Invigilator/ Supervisor and had taken away the answer sheet from the examination hall. On the allegations aforesaid, action under Para 6(xi) of the Union Public Service Commission's notice was also sought to be initiated against him. The petitioner filed reply to the letter aforesaid and explained that there was apparently some mistake or lapse on the part of the Union Public Service Commission and its staff and that he had not taken away the Text Booklet or the answer sheet from the Examination Hall. He sought to support his aforesaid plea on the ground that if he had taken the answer sheet from the Examination Hall, there was no question for the Commission not to have initiated any action against him and confront him with the kind of allegations after a period of four months from the day when he had taken away the answer sheet and that too when the petitioner himself initiated the matter and sought for re-checking of his papers. He also pleaded that if the allegations sought to be made out against him were true, there was no question for the Commission to have permitted him to take the interview with regard to the examination which he had admittedly cleared. The respondent-Commission, however, kept quiet over the issue constraining the petitioner once again to address a registered letter on 3/05/1991 wherein prayer for declaration of his result was reiterated. In the aforesaid communication to the Commission, the petitioner also prayed for an opportunity to prove his innocence by getting the statements of those who had appeared with him recorded. He also prayed for personal hearing in the matter. The Commission, on the other hand, issued letter dated 10/05/1991 and ordered that the result of the petitioner could not be declared as he had been debarred from taking all examinations and selections to be held by the Union Public Service Commission for a period of five years. Separate letter informing the petitioner that his candidature for the examination to be held in May 1991 for which he had applied was also cancelled was also written. The aforesaid two orders have been placed on the records as Annexures P/5 and P/6. The petitioner thereafter addressed several representation to the Commission but when his clamour for justice did not yield any results, he has approached this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.