-1-

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NOs.34850-34874/2018 (S-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NOs.44874-44893/2018 (S-RES)

IN W.P.NOs.34850-34874/2018: BETWEEN 1. SRI. HARSHA N

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O SRI. NAGARAJAIAH, NO.29, 3RD MAIN, G.K.V.K.LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE

2. SRI.J.R.SANDEEP RAJ AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAJU, C/O THIMMAIAH, MULABAGILAPALYA, BYALYA POST, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR

3. SRI.P.MAHESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA, C/O VENKATESHAPPA, NO.650/52A, SAI NILAYA, 11A CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MARUTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-64.

R

-2-

4. SRI. SANDEEP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O SRI.G.NAGARAJ C/O MUTHYALAPPA, DG PLANT QUARTERS, SN HALLI POST, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-64.

5. SRI. RAHUL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAJGOPAL, C/O THIRUMALAIAH, SIDDARAMESHWARANAGAR, OORKERE POST, TUMKUR.

6. KUM. SHARADA RANGA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS D/O SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA RANGA, C/O SATYANARAYANA RAO, EWS4, KHB COLONY II STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSORE-23.

7. SRI SHIVAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O SRI SHIVAPPA C/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, LAXMI RANGANATHA TRADERS APMC YARD, TUMKUR.

8. SRI.SANJAY KUMAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O SRI SUGURAPPA, C/O HEMANNA D, GANJIGUNTE, CHELLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA.

9. SRI SHARAT REDDY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O SRI RAJENDRA REDDY C/O VIJAYAKUMAR REDDY,

-3-

NO.102, SV HOMES, B NARAYANAPURA, PWD ROAD, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE.

10. SMT.KRISHNAVENI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS W/O SRI VENKATESH, C/O D.RAMAYYA, NO.164, 4TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, MUNESHWARANAGAR, PATEGARPALYA,

BANGALORE-79. 11. SRI.RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA K.S.

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O SRI SUBBAIAH, NO.7-2-59/1, HOSPITAL COLONY, KPC COLONY, HOSANGADI-576 282.

12. SRI.SHARATH KUMAR ANAND T AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O ANANDAPPA, AZAD NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

13. SRI.KARTHIK KUMAR V AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O SRI.H.VISHWANATH C/O MUTHYALAPPA, DG PLANT QUARTERS, SN HALLI POST, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-64.

14. SRI.VISHWANATH A AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O SRI DHARMA REDDY A C/O SMT.DHANALAKSHMI K NO.8/01,1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, DRC POST, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, BANGALORE-29.

-4-

15. SRI.NAVEEN N AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O SRI. S.L. NAGESH DEVI NILAYA, NILSKAR POST, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA – 577425.

16. SRI.BANGAR H.S.

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O SRI BASAVARAJU A Y.N.HOSAKOTE, PAVAGADA,

TUMKUR-572 141. 17. KUM.MEGHANA S.S.

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS D/O SRI.SURESH S.C. CHURCHIGUNDI POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA-577 214

18. SRI.SATHISH KALLAPPA MADIVALA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O SRI.K.S.MADIVALA, NO.108, PRESTINE SRI KRISHNA APARTMENTS, HEBBAGODI, BANGALORE-560 100.

19. SRI ANUP PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O SRI.PRABHAKAR, NO.194, 6TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS, A SECTOR, 7TH PHASE, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE.

20. SRI.L.ANIL REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O SRI.J.V.L. REDDY, NO.411, VASUNDHARA HEIGHTS, 4TH CROSS, VIDHANA SOUDHA LAYOUT,

-5-

PAPAREDDY PALYA, NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BANGALORE-72.

21. SRI.BHARAT KUMAR T.A. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O SRI.ANAND T NO.280, 3RD CROSS, BANASHANKARI V STAGE, BANGALORE-61.

22. SRI.SHIV KUMAR AGED 29 YEARS S/O SRI.MAREPPA, C/O NANJAMMA, NO.29, 3RD MAIN, G.K.V.K. LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE.

23. SRI.UMESH YADAV R.N. AGED 25 YEARS S/O SRI.NARASHIMURTHY R.V. MANGALWADA, NEEDGAL HOBLI, PAVGADA TALUK, MANGALWAD, TUMKUR.

24. SRI.S.DEEPAK AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O SRI SIDDAGANGAIAH, C/O ANUSUYA, NO.511, KPC LAYOUT, KASAVANAHALLI, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-35.

25. KUM.SRIDEVI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O SRI BASAVARAJ, C/O VENKATESHAPPA, NO.650/52A SAI NILAYA, 11A CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MARUTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-64.

... PETITIONERS (BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. G SHARADA BAI, ADVOCATE)

-6-

AND 1. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

REP. BY THE DIRECTOR (HR) NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

3. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED REP BY THE GENERAL MANAGER (A & HR) NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,

BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. P.S. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AJAY J N, ADVOCATE)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED CORRIGENDUM NO. A1P1C (C1) DATED 23.6.2018

PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT

CORPORATION CANCELLING THE WRITTEN TEST HELD ON

21.1.2018 FOR THE POSTS OF AEs / JEs / CHEMISTS /

CHEMICAL SUPERVISORS AND PROPOSING TO CONDUCT A RE-

EXAMINATION (VIDE ANNEXURE-A1) AS BEING ILLEGAL, VOID

AND INOPERATIVE AND ETC.

-7-

IN W.P.NOS.44874-44893/2018 BETWEEN 1. VIRUPAKSHAGOUDA

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O JAMBANAGOUDA RESIDING AT # 74, KACHAPUR NEAR BASAVANAGUDI, MAVINABHAVI POST LINGASUR TALUK RAICHUR DISTRICT 584122

2. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH RESIDING AT WARD NO.2, MALLAGHATTA, BEHIND LIC OFFICE KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130

3. NAVEEN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O NARAYAN SWAMY T RESIDING AT # 6, 1ST MAIN ROAD, OLD GEVEGOWDA ROAD, THIMMAIAH GARDEN, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032

4. VEERESHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O SHIVANNA RESIDING AT C/O # 8, 9TH CROSS, NANDINI DAIRY NEAR AYYAPPA BAKERY, BADRAPPA LAYOUT, BHOOPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560090

-8-

5. CHETANRAJU K V AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O VEEERABHADRARAJU K E RESIDING AT # LIG II 805, SATYAMANGALA K H B HASSAN-573201

6. KIRAN BABU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O KESHYA NAIK RESIDING AT UPPARAHALLI, NAGALAMADIKE POST, PAVAGADA TALUK,

TUMKUR DISTRICT-561202 7. KIRAN K N

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O NAGANNA RESIDING AT KEMBOOTHAGERE VILLAGE, KASABAHOBLI POST, MALAVALLI TALUK

MANDYA DISTRICT-571475 8. SHIVAKUMAR R

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O RAMESH RESIDING AT C/O 10TH CROSS NANDINI DAIRY, NEAR AYYAPPA BAKERY, BADRAPPA LAYOUT, BHOOPASANDRA BENGALURU- 560090.

9. SHIVAKUMAR H AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O CHANDRASHEKARAYYA SWAMY RESIDING AT 1-6-210/147 INDIRA NAGAR, STATION AREA, RAICHUR -584 103

10. CHANNABASAVA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

-9-

S/O CHANDRASHEKARAYYA SWAMY RESIDING AT 1-6-210/147 INDIARA NAGAR STATION AREA, RAICHUR-584 103

11. MALLESH B P AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O BEERAPPA N P RESIDING AT KAMANAHALLI, HANGAL TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-581104

12. SIDRAMESH B S AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O BASAVARAJA SAJJAN RESIDING AT BALAGANUR,

NEAR PANCHAYAT, SINDHNUR TALUK RAICHUR DISTRICT-584138 13. VASADEV EMMENNAVAR

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O BHIMAPPA RESIDING AT KAMBAGI, VIJAYAPURA TALUK VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT-586125

14. VARUN GOWDA K V AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O VENKATESH GOWDA RESIDING AT KOTAHALLI, K R PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571423

15. RAJAT AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O RAJKUMAR RESIDING AT HUMNABAD, NEAR BALAJI TEMPLE BIDAR DISTRICT-585330

16. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

-10-

S/O RAVINDRANATH ANGADI RESIDING AT BAICHBAL, SHORAPUR TALUK YADGIR DISTRICT-585224

17. SHREENIVASA

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O SOMARADDY BASAVARADDERA RESIDING AT BELUR, KATARKI POST, KOPPAL TALUK KOPPAL DISTRICT-583238

18. DEENESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O DNYANOBA EKTAPURE RESIDING AT HOLSAMUDRA, AURAD TALUK BIDAR DISTRICT-585417

19. NINGANNA MINCHANAL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O MAHADEV RESIDING AT NIMBAL K D INDI TALUK, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT-586211

20. RAVI C MADAR

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O CHANDRAPPA MADAR RESIDING AT MASUTI, BASAVAN BAGEWADI TALUK VIJAYAPUR DISTRICT-586121 ... PETITIONERS

(BY PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE)

-11-

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

2. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REGISTERED OFFICE:SHAKTI BHAVAN 82, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. P.S. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ASHWINI PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT-KPCL TO CANCEL THE WRITTEN EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON 21.1.2018 FOR THE POSTS OF AE(CIVIL), AE(MECHANICAL), AE (ELECTRICAL), JE(CIVIL), JE (MECHANICAL), JE (ELECTRICAL), CHEMISTS, CHEMICAL SUPERVISORS ETC. AS PER THE CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY IT ON 23.06.2018 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.01.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

-12-

COMMON ORDER

The respondent-Corporation is in the process of

recruiting suitable candidates for the posts of Assistant

Engineers, Junior Engineers, Chemists and Chemical

Supervisors. In that regard, the Corporation issued

recruitment notification dated 17.07.2017 inviting

applications from suitable candidates. Subsequently by

issuing another notification dated 03.08.2017, the earlier

notification was modified by increasing the total number of

posts to be filled by such recruitment viz., 394 posts

identified for Hyderabad-Karnataka candidates (local cadre)

under Article 371J of the Constitution of India and 228 posts

for non-Hyderabad Karnataka candidates. The written test

was conducted on 21.01.2018 across six centres in the State

of Karnataka. About 40,000 candidates appeared for the

written test, including the petitioners herein. Kannada

examination was conducted for non-resident candidates on

28.01.2018 and the results for the same were announced on

09.02.2018.

-13-

2. The respondent-Corporation published the key

answers to the written test, on its website on 28.02.2018 and

called for objections. After analyzing the objections and

feedback, revised key answers were published on the website

on 08.03.2018. It is contended by the petitioners that the

Corporation had held out to the candidates that the results

would be announced shortly. However, the results were not

announced even after six months.

3. The respondent-Corporation issued a corrigendum

dated 23.06.2018 cancelling the written test which was held

on 21.01.2018. It was also stated in the corrigendum that re-

examination will be conducted and the date of re-examination

and further details will be announced shortly. Those

candidates who had applied are eligible to appear for re-

examination. The petitioners are aggrieved by the

cancellation of the examination and are therefore, before this

Court challenging the corrigendum. The respondent-

Corporation issued a notification dated 16.07.2018 informing

the candidates that the written test will now be conducted by

-14-

Karnataka Examination Authority, in the month of September

2018. The details of instruction and schedule was sought to

be announced shortly after the notification dated 16.07.2018

was issued.

4. The challenge to the corrigendum and notification

issued by the Corporation is that the same is perverse,

without authority of law, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16

and breach of legitimate expectations. Allegation of

malice/political considerations is also made in the petitions.

The respondent-Corporation has filed statement of objections

denying the allegations made by the petitioners. Although

various grounds were raised in the memorandum of writ

petitions and each of them were sought to be met in the

statement of objections, the learned Senior Counsel

Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, appearing for the petitioners, in his

usual fairness, desisted from arguing on technical issues

such as the impugned decision of cancellation being titled as

corrigendum, while there was nothing to be corrected; the

impugned order was issued by the Director, Human

-15-

Resources, who has no authority of law and the impugned

order is a consequence of change of guard in the Government,

subsequent to the elections. As a consequence, the question

for consideration is narrowed down to whether the

Corporation was justified in canceling the written test in all

the papers or whether it could have looked into alternatives

such as appointing an expert committee to find the correct

key answers, or restricted the cancelled only to those papers

where the problem was so large that it was inevitable to

cancel such papers?

5. It is essential to note that in another batch of writ

petitions in W.P.Nos.44874-44893/2018, the petitioners who

have also taken the written test approached this Court with a

prayer seeking cancellation of the examination, on the ground

that the same is vitiated on account of malpractice,

discrepancies in the key answers and that more than 85% of

the questions were lifted from a single source viz., the

internet. Since the respondent-Corporation has cancelled the

written test, the grievance of the petitioners in those writ

-16-

petitions stand redressed. However, since both these batch of

writ petitions were clubbed, learned Counsel representing the

petitioners in W.P.Nos.44874-44893/2018 was also heard.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Prof.Ravivarma Kumar,

initially submitted that the problem with the key answers was

restricted only to one paper i.e., Assistant Engineer

(Mechanical). The learned Senior Counsel seems to have been

prompted from the averments made in W.P.Nos.44874-

44893/2018. It is stated in W.P.Nos.44874-44893/2018 that

85% of all the questions in Assistant Engineer (Mechanical)

paper was lifted from a single unauthenticated source viz.,

internet. As a consequence, the discrepancies in the key

answers occurred in the paper for Assistant Engineer

(Mechanical). Learned Senior Counsel Shri.P.S.Rajagopal,

appearing for the respondent-Corporation supported the

submission that the allegation of 85% of the questions being

lifted from a single unauthenticated source is also one of the

reasons for cancellation of the written test. On this aspect,

the person appointed by the Corporation for conducting the

-17-

examination has clarified that the questions were taken from

different sources which include well known text books, past

examination papers of GATE, JEE etc. It was further clarified

that the questions were not taken from a single

source/website. However, if there were similarities, it is sheer

coincidence.

7. The explanation offered by the person who set the

question paper is reasonable. The allegation that most of the

questions have been lifted from a single source/website may

appear to be correct, but it is also to be noticed that the

internet is an open source. Anyone can upload anything onto

the internet. Questions from textbooks can also be uploaded.

Therefore, the questions found in genuine textbooks will also

find their way into the internet and websites. Bearing these

things in mind, the allegation that most of the questions were

lifted from a single source/website, does not hold any water.

Therefore, the said contention raised by the petitioners in

W.P.Nos.44874-44893/2018 and the learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-Corporation is hereby rejected.

-18-

8. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation

has pointed out from the statement of objections that in view

of several representations made by the candidates and

objections being raised regarding the discrepancies in the key

answers, the respondent-Corporation looked into the matter

and sought for the view of the person appointed by the

respondent for conducting the examination. The concerned

person furnished a re-revised answer key. The re-revised

answer keys so furnished by the said person was sent for

third party verification to Vishweshwaraiah College of

Engineering and B.M.S.College of Engineering. It was found

that there were huge variations in the answer keys as given

by KPCL examiner and the Professors of these Colleges. As

per the tabular column prepared and furnished along with

the statement of objections, the question papers and the key

answers were found to be defective for more than two

reasons. The question papers had printing errors, while the

key answers could not be reconciled either on account of

wrong questions or more than one answer being correct. As

-19-

a consequence, the discrepancy in the key answers in all the

papers ranged from 5 to 29. There is not a single paper

which was problem free.

9. The learned Senior Counsel therefore contends that

the respondent-Corporation was placed in a precarious

position where on account of gross errors in the question

papers resulting in huge variation in marks it would not only

cause furore but also bring bad name to the Institution.

When the issue was discussed at the highest level, the

Corporation felt that the credibility of the examination was

brought under a cloud. It was noted that the examination is

a multiple choice question based examination. Each question

had to have only one correct answer, since these papers are

technical in nature with a scientific bent of mind. It was also

felt that in view of the gross defects, candidates could not be

selected in a fair and objective manner. It is under these

circumstances, it was submitted that the respondent-

Corporation took a decision to cancel the examination and

take the assistance of Karnataka Examination Authority in

-20-

conducting a fresh examination which would be fair and non-

discriminatory.

10. Learned Senior Counsel Prof.Ravivarma Kumar,

appearing for the petitioners sought to attack the decision of

the respondent-Corporation in canceling the examination,

mainly on the ‘doctrine of proportionality’. It was submitted

that having identified the defects in the key answers, the

remedy was to secure the correct key answers from an expert

or expert body. It was contended that even if the key answers

to some of the questions were not reconcilable, grace marks

could have been awarded to all the candidates for those

questions. It was also submitted that if the problem was so

huge in a particular paper, as a last measure, that particular

paper should have been cancelled.

11. On the ‘doctrine of proportionality’, the learned

Senior Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

i) Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar

and others [(2013) 4 SCC 690];

-21-

ii) Richal and Others Vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission and others [(2018) 8 SCC

81];

iii) Manish Ujwal and Others Vs. Maharishi

Dayanand Saraswathi University and Others

[(2005) 13 SCC 744];

iv) Om Kumar and others Vs. Union of India

[(2001) 2 SCC 386;

12. In the case of Om Kumar and others (supra), it

was held that the Supreme Court of Israel has now recognized

‘proportionality’ as a separate ground in administrative law -

different from unreasonableness. It is stated that it consists

of three elements. First, the means adopted by the authority

in exercising its power should rationally fit the legislative

purpose. Secondly, the authority should adopt such means

that do not injure the individual more than necessary. And

third, the injury caused to the individual by the exercise of

power should not be disproportional to the benefit which

accrues to the general public.

13. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that

the respondent-Corporation should have taken the assistance

-22-

of an expert body in arriving at the key answers and based on

the inputs from the expert body, the answer papers should

have been evaluated, springs from the fact that such

exercises were undertaken at the instance of the Apex Court

in the case of Richal (supra). Similar exercise was directed to

be undertaken at the instance of the High Court, in the case

of Rajesh Kumar and others (supra).

14. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the

decision of the respondents in annulling the examination

could not be justified by supplying reasons through an

affidavit or in the statement of objections. In this regard,

reliance was placed on the judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill

and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New

Delhi and others reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405. It was

pointed out from paragaph-8 that when a statutory

functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its

validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and

cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of

affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the

-23-

beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a

challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought

out.

15. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the

Corporation relies upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Hanuman Prasad and others Vs. Union of India

and others reported in (1996) 10 SCC 742, to counter the

argument of the petitioners that when an order is passed, be

it administrative or quasi-judicial in nature, it should

necessarily contain grounds or reasons for invalidating the

action taken. While taking into consideration the decision of

the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), it was held

that if the order canceling the examination came to be

passed, the record should indicate the reason, though order

may not contain the reasons. It was pointed out that in the

case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and

Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S.Gandhi, reported in

(1991) 2 SCC 716, it was held that the order did not contain

the reasons but the record indicated the same. The

-24-

administrative order canceling the examination in which

mass copying was alleged, was sustained.

16. The respondent-Corporation has placed on record

the material which formed the basis for the Corporation to

take a decision that in view of the irreconcilable discrepancies

in the key answers and in view of the allegations being made

that malpractice was perpetrated at the behest of the staff

and officers of the respondent-Corporation, their wards

gained advantage, be it in the matter of seating arrangement

or leakage of question paper, the Corporation has taken the

decision to cancel the examination.

17. On the question of application of the ‘doctrine of

proportionality’ to the case on hand, learned Senior Counsel

for the Corporation submitted that the material on record

would clearly justify the decision of the Corporation in

annulling examinations of all the papers. It is submitted that

the Corporation made all efforts to secure the opinion of the

experts in each of the papers and it was found that the

discrepancies ranged from 5 questions to 29 questions. It

-25-

was therefore felt that if grace marks were to be awarded, the

very objective in conducting the examination to find

meritorious candidates would be defeated. It was further

submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners since

the answer scripts were not evaluated, another opportunity is

given to all the candidates and the decision has been taken at

the earliest possible time.

18. On the ‘doctrine of proportionality’ canvassed by

the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, it is seen from

the material on record that the Corporation has made

attempts to find the key answers from experts in the field. It

is seen that the discrepancies have occurred in all the papers,

ranging from 5 to 29. The tabular column prepared by the

Corporation and furnished along with the statement of

objections would establish the fact that in every paper there

are discrepancies which cannot be reconciled. This is either

because of the printing error or because of wrong questions.

No doubt, it can be argued that instead of canceling the

examination, the Corporation could have taken expert advise

-26-

in identifying the ‘problem questions’ and granted grace

marks to questions where it was found that the answers were

irreconcilable and proceeded to evaluate the answer scripts,

keeping in mind the hardship that would be caused to the

candidates. On this aspect of the matter, the law is well

settled that if two views are possible, the decision of the

authority in taking a particular view could be subjected to

judicial review, only to scrutinize the manner in which the

decision is taken, lest it he tainted with malafiedes or based

on irrelevant consideration. In this case, there is no

allegation of malafides on the part of the respondent

authorities. Moreover, while applying the proportionality test

to the possible alternatives suggested, the Court should be

concerned with the aims of the decision maker and whether

the decision maker has achieved the correct balance. When

such a test is applied to find out whether the Corporation has

struck a correct balance vis-à-vis the available alternatives,

this Court is satisfied that the decision of the Corporation is

well balanced and harmonious. This view is fortified by the

-27-

decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gohil Vishvaraj

Hanubhai and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and others

reported in (2017) 13 SCC 621, where it was held that “by

virtue of the impugned action, the innocent candidates (for

that matter all the candidates including the wrongdoers) still

get an opportunity of participating in the fresh examination

process to be conducted by the State. The only legal

disadvantage if at all is that some of them might have crossed

the upper age-limit for appearing in the fresh recruitment

process. That aspect of the matter is taken care of by the

State. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned action

is vitiated by lack of nexus with the object sought to be

achieved by the State, by herding all the candidates to the

examination together.”

19. Moreover, the decision to cancel the examination

has been taken at the earliest point of time, even before the

answer scripts are evaluated. The respondents have also

spent little time on declaring fresh examination. The

assistance of the Karnataka Examination Authority has also

-28-

been sought to conduct fresh examination in a fair and

transparent manner. In all the decisions relied upon by the

petitioners, the situation were such that in the larger interest

of the student community who had taken up examinations

across the country, ordering re-examination was found to be

undesirable or the process of selection had proceeded to such

an extent that ordering re-examination at the advanced

stages would cause undue hardship to the candidates.

20. In the light of the above, this Court is of the

opinion that the decision taken by the respondent-

Corporation in canceling the examination and calling for fresh

examination, granting opportunity to all the candidates who

had made the application, cannot be faulted with.

21. As a consequence, W.P.Nos.34850-34874/2018

stand dismissed, while W.P.Nos.44874-44893/2018 are

dismissed as having become infructuous.

No order as to costs.

SD/- JUDGE

JT/-