Shri Pradip Kr. Das and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

K.N. Saikia, J.—Altogether 221 writ Petitioners 169 original and 52 interveners, seek a mandamus restraining the Respondents, from giving effect to the impugned Employment Notice No. R.B. 1/83, from holding the examination mentioned therein, to refrain from all actions done or taken in pursuance the said Employment Notice, until the entire panel of candidates prepared by way Service Commission, Gauhati shortly ''the Commission'' against Employment Notice No. 1/84-83 is exhausted by recruiting all the candidates of the panel in posts of Class-III categories lying vacant.

The facts may be briefly stated. Employment Notice No. 1/82-83 (Annexure-1 to the petition) was published by the Commission in the Assam. Tribane dated 20.7.82 Inviting applications from eligible candidates for a competitive examination for recruitment to the posts of "Class-III Categories" which included Commercial Clerks, Signallers, Ticket Collectors, Train Clerks, Office Clerks and Accounts Clerks in the N.F. Railway. It was mentioned in the said notice that there were 500 vacancies of those categories. Altgether 42,000 applications were received out of which only 1400 candidates were called for written test which was held on 5.6.83 followed by oral test held on different dates. By letter No. RSC/G/Con/155/23 dated 9.9.83 the Commission published the names of 537 successful candidates. On the same day there was another publication of the result of 253 successful candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes against backlog vacancies. Thus altogether 790 successful candidates were in the panel.

Oil 4.11.83 the then Railway Minister made a statement, as reported in the Assam Tribune, Gauhati threatening to scrap the N.F. Railway service Commission on the ground of corruption as only 2 out of 33 candidates from Malda where given appointment letters.

On 19.11.83 letters were issued only to 79 put of total 790 finally selected candidates for medical examination for the purpose of appointment to the post of Class-III categories. They were medically examined and have since been absorbed. Representations wore submitted on behalf of the remaining empanelled candidates without any result. The impugned Employment Notice No. R.B.-1/83 dated 27.9.83 (Annexure V to the petition) was issued by the Commission and published in the Assam Tribune dated 6.10.83 inviting applications for the post in categories showing 120 vacancies.

Meanwhile, some more reports about scraping of the examination having been published in the local press, 169 empanelled candidates filed this writ application on 13.9.84 and the Rule thereon was issued on 26.10.84, On 14.9.84, 52 other empanelled candidates applied for being impleaded as Petitioners which was allowed on 26.10.84.

This petition is being resisted by the Respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition on 23.8.84 stating that the candidates could not be given appointment as all the records connected with the selection were seized by the Vigilance Organisation for the purpose of making an enquiry pursuant to the complaints received against the selection of the candidates and that ''action'' would be possible only after the receipt of the final decision in the matter and that the impugned Employment Notice No. RB-1/83 dated 27.9.83 was published for 120 posts relating to the period April, 1983 to September, 1984 and had no relation with the vacancies against which 790 candidates were selected against Employment Notice No. 1/82-83.

The Respondents filed an additional affidavit-in opposition on stating that, the Ministry of Railway under their confidential No. (ENG) II-84 (RSC)38 PI dated 11.10.84 intimated the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon that it had been decided by the Ministry of Railways that the panel declared by the Commission against the Employment Notice No. 1/82-83 should be screened by the Vigilance Organisation of the N.F. Railway to detect and to locate cases affiliated by apparent irregularities and malpractice as revealed by the document and that the names of such candidates would be deleted from the panel. It was further stated that on the basis of the delegation of the powers by the Ministry of Railways to the Vigilance Organisation of the N.F. Railway the Chief Vigilance. Officer, who was the head of the Vigilance Organisation, scrutinised the cases of irregularities and malpractices as revealed by the documents and that after making a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid case, the Chief Vigilance Officer under his confidential order dated 23.11.84 submitted a revised list indicating roll numbers of the candidates who could be placed on the panel and seat the wised list to the Chief Personnel Officer for necessary action; and that pursuant to the aforesaid order the panel had been declared under Memo No. E/RT/Panel/Popular Catogory/PI dated 28.11.84 consisting of 260 candidates against the regular vacancies and 173 against backlogs in connection with the Employment Notice No. 1/83-83 for popular categories. It was also stated that necessary arrangements were being made for examination of the aforesaid 433 candidate medically batchwise and also to absorb them against vacancies. It was submitted that the screening of the panel deleting the names of candidates who appeared to be involved in irregularities and malpractice, was legal and valid and that the same had been done to uphold the sanctity of the examination, and justice.

The Petitioners filed their afiidavit-in-reply on 7-1985 stating that although the examination was held as fat back as on 6.5.83, no complaint was admittedly received-by the authorities till the 79 candidates were medically examined for recruitment pursuant to the letter dated 19.11.83 and, therefore the entire action of the authorities was mysterious and was vitiated by bias and mala fide and that the 79 candidates medically examined were deprived of recruitment on extraneous and irrelevant consideration. It was that under the provision of Railway Circular RSC/11 dated 23.2.84 until a panel of certain categories of posted formed recruitment, was fully exhausted, another employment notice for the same categories of posts by way of subsequent indent should not be issued inviting application, and, therefore, the action of publishing the impugned subsequent Employment Notice No. RB-1/83 dated 27.9.83 for 120 posts of popular categories, was violtive of the aforesaid Circular. It was stated that the examination of the candidates numbering about 1,400 out of 42,000 applicants was held under strict vigilance and supervision of the Principal/Headmaster and teaches of some schools and that sufficient invigilators were appointed by the authorities for holding the said examination. A sum of about a lakh of rupees had been spent in connection with the holding of the examination and that the written test was bold and khatas were examinated according to the procedure uniformly followed long. It was submitted, inter alia, that the so called Inquiry and/pr investigation entrusted to the Vigilanc Organisation at the behest of the Railway Ministry of the Government of India, was against the principles of natural justice; that it was incumbent on the inquiry/investiongation and without giving them such opportunity to explain their cases, the action purported to be taken on the basis of so-called inquiry was illegal, ultra vires and void; and that the were Respondents were not legally entitled to revise the list on basis thereof. It was reiterated that the allegation of malpractice was very serious allegation and that without giving any opportunity to show cause against such serious allegation to all selected candidates including the present Petitioners, the Respondents were not entitled to take the purpose of disqualifying them.

The intervening Petitioners filed an affidavit-in rejoinder to the; affidavit-in-opposition of this Respondents giving the relevant dates and facts seriatim and the break up of vacancies. If alluded to a Railway communication (Annexed as Annexure R-2) referring to the report of inquiry but the Respondents having claimed, privilege in respect of that dement we leave it out of consideration. It was submitted inter alia in the affidavit that the affidavit, Officer had nothing to do with the Commission that his action in picking and choosing candidates while screeing the panel was discriminatory that suspicion of irregularities and male practices could not take place of proof that the deletion from the panel of candidates who acquired the right for consideration in the matter of appointment could not be taken away on the basis of suspicion only and without complying with the elementary principles of natural justice and, therefore, the list published on 28.11.84 excluding 357 empanelled candidates was liable to be interfered with; and that the vacancies had to be filled up from the original panel of 790 candidates and till that panel was exhausted no new panel could be prepared or acted upon.

A counter affidavit was filed by the Respondent on 28.2.85 stating, Inter alia, that the Vigilance Department was a wing of the Railways and had the authority to order investigation and scrutiny by the Vigilance Department that the same could be done by the Vigilance Organisation without giving any opportunity to the selected candidates; that the Employment Notice No. RB 1/83 dated 27.9.83 for 120 posts related to the period between April, 1983 to September, 1984 and it bad no relation and/or connection with the 790 candidates selected against Employment Notice No. 1/82-83; that the Railway Administration was not obliged to communicate the sources of complaints to the Petitioners regarding the anomalies and malpractices in the selection in question ; and that there was no violation of the principle of natural justice and fair play.

Mr. S.N. Medhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits. The Respondents are bound by their own circular and by the terms of employment notice to appoint all the 790 finally selected candidates in the vacancies notified. The action of the Respondents in screening the 357 candidates out of the panel pursuant to the allegations made by the Railway Minister behind the Petitioner'' back without giving the Petitioners any opportunity to explain their case is violative of the principle of natural justice and as such illegal and void. The Respondents cannot hold examination and select candidates against the impugned Employment Notice No. RB, 1/83 for vacancies notified in Employment Notice No. 1/82-83.

Mr. A.R. Barooah, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submits: The inclusion of the Petitioners'' names in the panel ipso facto did not confer any right to appointment and the Railway administrator has the right to refuse appointment to some or all of the candidates included in the panel. The screening of 357 candidates out of the panel has been done by, virtue of the authority given by the Railway Board and hence it cannot be questioned by the Petitioners, The Respondent were not required to give any opportunity to the candidates before screening them out after investigation and inquiry upon allegations of irregularity and malpractices and there is no question of violating the principles of natural justice. The 120 vacancies for which the subsequent Employment Notice No. RB. 1/83 was issued related to a different period and it had nothing to do with the 500 vacancies for whole the earlier Employment Notice No. 1/82-83 was issued.

Three questions are required to be judicially determined in this petition. They are (1) Are alt the 790 candidates included in the panel entitled to be appointed? (2) Is the screening out of 337 candidates from the panel by the Vigilance Organisation valid and binding? (3) Could the Respondents hold examination and select candidates for 120 vacancies for which the subsequent Employment Notice No. 1/83 was issued?

The answer to the first question will depend on the stipulations in the employment notice as also the statutory provisions, if any, applicable to such appointments. The employment notice has a contractual element in it. When Commission issued and published Employment Notice No. 1/82-83, inviting applications from eligible candidates to appear in a competitive examination, it stated that the final selection would be based on the total marks obtained in the written examination and interview and that number of vacancies in the various categories in the region would be 500. It was further stated that the figure was provisional and was likely to vary according to exigencies of circumstances obtaining at the time of final selection. In response thereto the candidates having applied, and being called for, appeared at the examination and interview and were finally selected. It would not be permissible for the Commission to act contrary to the imputations in the employment notice. As was ruled in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of Mia AIR 1976 SC 1628, the rule inhibiting arbitrary action by Government must apply equally in the matter of giving job? or entering into contracts or otherwise; and the Government cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person it likes at its sweet will. On contractual analysis it may be said that the candidates having acted to their detriments upon the stipulations made in the employment notice, the Commission would be estopped from acting contrary to these stipulations. In the instant case the Commission selected 790 candidates though the number of vacancies was 500, as stated in the employment notice. That figure however, was stated to be provisional and was likely to vary according to the exigencies obtained at the time of final selection. Since the final selection of 790 candidates was already made by the Commission, the change in the number of vacancies if any, was not notified. There is no stipulation in the employment notice that the selection made by the Commission would be subject to any variation. Thus on the basis of the employment notice, the Respondent would be estopped from denying appointments to 500 finally selected candidates, as no change or variation in number of vacancies was notified before final selection. If any finally selected candidate was found medically unfit or otherwise unsuitable that would, of course, be a different matter.

Paragraph III of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, shortly ''the Manual'', which deals with application for employment, provides:

Candidates will be required to apply with reference to the specific employment notice of the Commissions or the Railways on printed application forms obtainable on all important Railway Stations or from the offices of the Commissions on payment of Rs. 2/- per form, (or 0.50 Paise in the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes).

Under Paragraph 112 of the Manual:

The names of successful candidates who are recommended by the Railway Service Commission or rejected by the Railway administrations themselvss for appointment on Indian Railways will be exhibited on notice boards, in the Commission''s Office, Employment Exchange concerned and publish as "news item" in the newspapers, free of cost as also by the Railway administrations in their Divisional/District and Headquarters Offices. Selection of a candidate by a Commission or a Railway administration is however, no guarantee of employment on the railway which is subject to his qualifying in the prescribed medical examination and to his being otherwise suitable for service under Government.

The Petitioners having applied, they were examined, tested and finally selected by the Commission. That by itself would give no guarantee of employment in the Railway as it was subject to the candidates qualifying in the prescribed medical examination and to their being otherwise found suitable for service under the Government, These conditions, however, are conditions subsequent to the ideation and not anterior to it, These two subsequent conditions would not affect the candidate status of having been selected. The finality of the selection would not thereby be affected a these condition would affect only the right to be appointed on the bail of the selection. The selection made by the Commission would remain final. No rule has been shown to us to the effect that the selection was not final.

We have been shown a still subsequent Employment Notice No. RSC/MLDT/EN/l/84 published in the Assam Tribune of September 9, 1984, Stipulation 14 of that Notice is to the following effect:

Commission''s decision final. The decision of the Commission in all matters relating to eligibility, acceptance or rejection of application, issue of free Railway passes penalty for false information, mode of selection conduct of examination and interview tests, selection, category wise allotment of selected candidates etc. will be final and binding on the candidates and no enquiry or correspondence will be entertained In this connection.

However, the above stipulation is not to be found in the instant Employment Notice No. 1/82-83 (Annexure-1 to the petition). Nevertheless it has not been stated in Annexure I that the Commission''s selection was not final and was subject to finalisation or revision by any body or authority. The above stipulations as to finality may even be held to have been implied.

Mr. Barooah, however, submits that the Railway Administration is not bound to appoint all the candidates selected by the Commission, which, according to him, is only an Advisory Board ; and he relies on Sham Sunder v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 212 and the The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others,

In Sham Sunder (supra), the Railway Board received several complaints and representations regarding the constitution of the panel and by an order the Railway Board decided that the panel of 33 person was irregularly drawn up and that there should be a panel of 24 persons only. The General Manager, Northern Railway, implemented the decision and directed that the panel was to be operated upto the first 24 persons only and that the remaining 14 persons including the Petitioner therein should be treated as deleted from the panel. It was contended for the Petitioner that the Railway Board or the General Manager had no power to amend the panel published, The contention was rejected because there was no controversy that under Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code the Railway Board bad the power to issue the general direction. The Railway Board by letter No, E/52/PM 2-34 dated August 4, 1953 directed that ''the panels once approved should not be cancelled or amended without reference to the authority next above the one that approved the panel". So the General Manager, Northern Railway, who had approved a particular panel of selected candidates had power to amend the panel subsequently with the approval of Railway Board which was the authority next above him. In the Instant case the Ministry of Railways under their confidential No, E(NG)II-84 (RSC) 38 P.I dated 11,10,84 intimated the General Manager, Maligaon about the decision to screen the panel by the Vigilance Organisation, and not by the Railway Board. We are called upon to decide whether Ministry of Railway; bad that power. What we find is that while doing so the Vigilance Commission acted in total violation of the principles of natural justice. Even if the power was there it could not have been done in violation of natural justice.

In Shitla Sahai Srivastava Vs. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, the Supreme Court considered the question as to whether the deletion of the Appellant''s name from the panel amounted to reduction in rank. It was deeded in the negative as the word'' ''provisional'' was specifically noted against the name of the Appellant which clearly showed that he did not acquire a right to the post. In the case in hand there was no indication that the list was'' provisional.

In the instant case the question is not the number of vacancy or the names being provisional, but irregularity and malpractices said to have been committed in the examination by the candidates, The screening is not on the ground that the number of vacancy did not require the panel which was prepared by the Commission, Nor is it the case of the Respondent that the names in the panel were provisional.

In the The State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others, their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951. Rule 8 provided for preparation of a list of eligible candidates. Rule 10(ii) of Part C and Rule 11 of Part B provided for appointment of Subordinate Judges, from the list preferred by the Public Service Commission on the basis of competitive examination. The questions were-(i) whether the Commission or the State or the High Court could depart from the order of merit given in the list; (ii) whether entry of name of a candidate in the list or existence of vacancies gave him right to be appointed; and (iii) whether a mandamus could be issued. As a result of a competitive examination held by the Haryana Public Service Commission for recruitment of candidates for 15 vacancies in the: Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) a list of 40 candidates who passed in the examination, was published in the Haryana Gazette. The State Government which was the appointing authority, made seven appointments in the serial order of list according to merit. In the view of the State Government which was the same as that of the High Court previously, intimated to the State Government that candidates getting less than 35% of marks in the examination should not be appointed'' as Subordinate Judges in the Interest of maintaining high standards of competence in Judicial service. The Respondents, who ranked 8, 9 and 13 respectively in the list and who expected to be appointed, filed a petition under Articles 226 for a mandamus claiming that since there were 15 vacancies and they had the necessary qualifications for appointment, the State Government was not entitled to pick and choose only seven out of them for appointment, because to do so would be to prescribe a standard which was not contemplated by the Rules but was against them. The High Court issued a mandamus to the Appellant to select the Respondents under Rule 10(ii) of part C of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Service Rules, 1951 so that names were brought on the High Court Register for appointment as Subordinate Judges in the Haryana State. Hence the appeal by the State. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the service Rules had been made in consultation with the Public Service Commission and the High Court and, therefore, they were binding on all, They showed that the examination was the final test, apart from medical examination per Rule 11 in Part C for a candidate''s appointment to the post of the Subordinate judge and once the list was prepared by the Public Service Commission neither the State nor the High Court could depart from the order of merit given in the list except where reservations had been made in favour of backward classes and Scheduled Castes and tribes in accordance with Rule 10(ii), The true effect of Rule 10 in Part C was that if and when the State Government proposed to make appointments of Subordinate Judges the State Government should not make such appointments by travelling outside the list and (ii) should make the selection for appointments strictly in the order the candidates have been placed in the list published in the Government Gazette. Apart from these constraints on the power to make the appointments, Rule 10 did not impose any other constraint. There was no constraint that the Government should make an appointment of a Subordinate Judge either because there were vacancies or because of list of candidates had been prepared and was in existence. Their Lordships further held that mere entry in the list of the name of a candidate did not give him the right to be appointed. The advertisement that there were 15 vacancies to be filled did not also give him a right to be appointed. It might happen that the Government for financial or other administrative reasons might not fill up any vacancies. In a case the candidates, even the first in the list, would not have a right to be appointed. The list was merely to help the State Government it making the appointments showing which candidates had the minimum qualification under the Rules.

After the decisions in State of U.P. v. Martbodhan AIR J957 SC 922 and Ram Gopal Chaturvedi Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, it is now settled that the words ''shall be consulted'' in Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution are not 10 be construed in the sense that in default of consultation the action of Government under any of the sub-clauses of this clause would be null and void. In A.N. D''silva Vs. Union of India (UOI), it has been held that Commission''s function is purely advisory, However, these cases do not lay down any proposition that the selection made by the Public Service Commission may be interfered with by any authority. Besides, the instant, case is not a selection made by the State or Union Public Service Commission. In the case of the Railway we have several rules framed by competent authorities governing selection by Railway Service Commission which is part of Railway administration.

The right of a person is panel prepared by the Railway Service Commission has, therefore, to be determined in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to the Respondents In this context the letter dated 28.3.84 from the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon on the subject of placement of indents on Railway Service Commission, is relevant. A copy of Board''s letter No. E(NG) 11-84/RSC/II dated 23.2 84 has been annexed thereto. In para (iii) of that circular it is stated that the Railway Service Commissions will be sending panels to the Railway Administration only to the extent indicated in his respective indents received by them. The Railway should process these panels expeditiously and issue offers of appointment to the successful candidates without any loss of time. In para (vi) it has been stated:

Where a panel made available by a Railway Service Commission is still to be exhausted by the Railway Administration concerned, while there may be no objection to the said Commission processing the next indent from the same Railway for the same category which they might have already received, the results of the examination/selection with reference to the subsequent indent shall not be notified till it is certified by the Railway Administration concerned that offers of appointment have been made to all the candidates recommended by the Railway Service Commission in their earlier panel. Similarly, till the Railway Administration in a position to give such certificate, no subsequent indent for the same category shall be placed by them on the Railway Service Commission, Every indent on Railway Service-Commission should therefore contain a certificate to this effect in future. For example 1982, 1983 and 1984, if a panel against the indent placed lot 1982 is still to be exhausted, while the indent for 1983 may be processed by the Railway Service Commission concerned, the result of the Selection/examination shall not be announced by the Commission tilt a certificate is forthcoming from the Railway Administration that the offers for appointment against ,the indent placed for 1982 had been issued. Similarly, the indent for 1984 can he placed by the Railway Service Commission only when this condition is fulfilled and it should In fact, contain a certificate that offers of appointment against the panel supplied by the Railway Service Commission on the indent for 1982 have been issued.

Paragraph 217 of the Manual deals with currency of the panel. Under Clause (a) thereof panel drawn by a Sanction Board and approved by competent authority shall be current for two years from the date of approval by the competent authority or till these are exhausted, whichever is earlier.

In Shyam Behari Lal and Ors. v. The General Manager, North Eastern Railway 1973 (2) S.L.R. 168 a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held:

no provisional list can be prepared once a selection is duly made by the Selection Board, because when a selection in made and the panel prepared is approved by the competent authority, rights to the persons selected and put on the panel accrue under Clauses (a) and (b) of paragraph 217, Those rights may be of a limited character even so it is not possible to hold that paragraph 217 does not confer any right at all to persons who have been selected and whose names have been placed in the approved panel.

We respectfully agree with the view and also with the view that if paragraph 217 did not or was not intended to afford any protection to or confer any right on the persons concerned and if by paragraph 216(j) it was intended to confer an absolute and uncontrolled power on the higher authority than merely at the option of the higher authority, some persons could be required to appear at several successive selections by Selection Board by just cancelling or amending the panels prepared earliar. Obviously it could never have been the Intention of the authority which framed paragraph 216(j) to confer such unfettered power on the higher authority nor could it be said that paragraph 217 was framed merely for purposes of establishment and not for the purpose of affording some safeguard to or conferring some right on candidates who are declared to be successful in the selection examination and whose names are included in the panel as such.

The Petitioners'' right to be appointed has, therefore, to be ascertained on the basis of the Employment Notice and the relevant Paragraphs of the Railway Establishment Code and the Manual. So ascertained, we bold that the Petitioners whose names were included in the panel, unless they were disqualified by medical examination or otherwise found unsuitable for service under the Government, had the right to be appointed in the notified 500 vacancies on the basis of the selection. If the number of posts were lesser then the number of names in the panel end the last ones could not be appointed would entirely he a different question.

As regards the second question, admittedly the Petitioners were not given any opportunity whatsoever to explain their cases before their names were screened out of the select list/panel. It cannot be denied that the Petitioners earned some right by virtue of their names being included in the list. Could they be deprived of those rights without hearing them ? It is an accepted principle that when orders are passed affecting civil rights, justice demands that the persons affected should be given a hearing. The rules requiring impartial adjudication and fair hearing is an ancient tine and is in conformity with the natural rights and reason. Natural justice, natural law, laws of God, common right and right reason and justice, equity and good conscience are different expressions of natural justice. They are equally applicable to judicial orders, to quasi-judicial orders and in appropriate cases, to administrative order and sometimes even in private spheres. Where an administrative act or decision is vitiated by the breach of natural justice the Court may award, appropriate remedies and the remedy will frequently be certiorari to quash the order on the ground that the decision was vitiated and as such void and a nullity. Depending on the circumstances of the case, a decision reached or proceedings taken in breach of the audl alteram partem rule will be reviewable by means of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, an injunction or a declaration. Such breach goes to the jurisdiction and may render an order or determination void. In Durah v. Fernando (1967) 2 AC 337 , it was held (i) that such an order was voidable but not nullity, and (ii) that if successfully impugned it would become void ab initio in relation to a person aggrieved. It was ruled in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others, that even administrative orders which involve civil consequences have to be passed consistently with the rules of natural justice. An order passed without observing the principles of natural justice will be liable to be set aside, In A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, It has been ruled that the dividing line between an administrative power and a quasi Judicial power is quite this and is being gradually obliterated. For determining whether a power is an administrative power or a quasi judicial power one has to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, the framework of the law conferring that power, the consequences ensuing from the exercise of that power and the consequences ensuing from the exercise of be exercised; and that the concept of rule of law would lose its vitality if the instrum entalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. What was considered as an administrative power some years back is now being considered as a qunsi-judicial power. Since aim of both quasi-judical as well as administrative inquiries is to arrive at a just decision, the rules of natural justice apply to both. It was ruled in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India 1983 Lab. I.C. 1680 (SC) that the principle of natural justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. As was observed in National Textile Workers'' Union and Others Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Others, the of administrative law. It is first a universal principle and therefore, a rule administrative law and it has been imported into the administrative process because of its universality and the administrators are to observe natural justice; In Shiv Shanker and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the question was whether the principles of natural justice should be observed when an order of forfeiture of service on the ground of participation in an illegal strike was to be made, It was held that at neither para 1301 nor para 1304 of the Railway Establishment Manual excluded tile observance of the principles of natural justice either expressly or by necessary implication, order of forfeilure of past service of railway employee, was liable to be quashed when no opportunity was given to the employee to show cause against the proposed action. Their Lordships held that the question was already answered in Dayal Saran Sanan Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, there also it was ruled that an order of forfeiture of past service without observing the principle of natural Justice was bad. Thus where the principle of natural Justice are not specifically excluded in any provision of the Railway establishment Code or in the Manual, natural justice principles have to be observed; otherwise the action will be bad.

When a number of candidates appear at an examination under certain rules and regulations, there is an Implied obligation on the part of those who conduct the examination not to deprive the examinees the fruits of their examination unless there if violation of the rules or regulations by the candidates themselves. In the instant case when the examination was held and complex led there was no complaint whatsoever about any violation of the rules and regulations of the examination. If there was, irregularity in conducting the examination, the candidates could not be blamed for that. If there were malpractices adopted by some of the examinees they could have been detected at the examination. In the instant case there was no such detection. If subsequently there was criticism against the Commission in the matter of selection, the candidates who already appeared and were success far at the examination, could not be blamed, far less could be deprived of the fruits of the examination.

In a series of decisions Supreme Court held that University examinee could not be deprived of the results of his examination on ground of adoption of unfair meant or of misconduct without giving him an opportunity to show cause. We may refer to 1970 A.L.R. 1 (SC); Gauhati University v. Paban Rajkonwar AIR 1972 SC 1708; Prem Prakash v. The Punjab University (1983) 1 G.L.R. 50; Tribandral Chowdhury v. Gauhati University; and 1992 G.L.R. 104 Bikram hazarika v. University of Gauhati.

Mr. Barooah submits that the Railway Ministry authorised the Vigilance Organisation to investigate into the matter. That might be so, but the candidates whose names were being screened out were entitled to be heard, and as in the instant case admittedly no such opportunity was given, the screening out of their names must be held to be void and a nullity and we hold so. Consequently their names must be deemed to have continued in the list and they be deemed to have been entitled to all the rights they had so long their names continued in the list. In the result, we hold that 357 candidate/whose names were screened out of the list of 790 candidates must be deemed to have continued in the list and to haw never been deleted from the list.

As regards the third question. It has not been seriously disputed that 120 vacancies for which the subsequent Employment Notice No, RB-1/83 was issued related to a different period, namely, between April, 1983 to September, 1984 and, as such it in no way affected the 500 vacancies where for the earlier Employment Notice No. 1/82-83 was issued. This being the position the Respondents would not be debarred from holding the examination as per that Employment Notice No. RB-1/83 and in selecting successful candidates and in making appointment pursuant thereto. However, the Board''s letter No. E(NG) II-84/RSC/11 dated 23.2.84 must be followed.

In the result, this petition is allowed and the Rule made absolute to the extent indicated above. We make no order as to costs.