(1.) THE matter was taken for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short `rpsc') vide order dated September 30, 2002 debarred the petitioner, an Advocate by profession, from participating in all further selections/examinations held by RPSC for a period of two years on the allegations that Answer Book of the petitioner for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination 2001 were found with torn pages at the time of evaluation. THE petitioner thereafter was not allowed to appear in the screening test for APP Examination 2002 which was to be held on October 6, 2002. THE petitioner by way of this writ petition sought directions to negate the aforesaid orders.
(3.) THE Courts of India have been acting as vigilant sentinels on the qui vive to see that the principles of natural justice, are not violated by a judicial or quasi judicial authority. One of the broad principles of natural justice is that a quasi judicial authority cannot make any decision against a party without giving him an effective opportunity of meeting the allegations made against him. THE judicial or quasi judicial functions must be performed in good faith after listening fairly to both sides. Earl of Selborne in Spackman vs. Plushtead Board of Works (1), used the phrases "the substantial requirements of justice" and at another place "the essence of justice" to mean natural justice, when he observed:- " No doubt, in the absence of special provisions as to how person who is to decide is to proceed, the law will imply no more than that the substantial requirements of justice shall not be violated. He is not a judge in the proper sense of the word; but he must give the parties an opportunity of being heard before him and stating their case and their view. He must give notice when he will proceed with the matter, and he must act honestly and impartially and not under the dictation of some other person or persons to whom the authority is not given by law. "