HANUMAN PRASAD AND ORS, V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR INSC 1085

The case of Hanuman Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., decided on September 6, 1996, by the Supreme Court of India, addresses significant issues concerning administrative decision-making, particularly the necessity for authorities to provide reasons for their actions and the implications of mass malpractice in examinations.

Background:

The petitioners, Hanuman Prasad and others, were candidates who had participated in a selection process for government appointments. Allegations of widespread malpractice, including mass copying during the examination, prompted the authorities to cancel the entire selection list. This decision was based on a preliminary report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which indicated substantial evidence of misconduct. 

Legal Issues: 1. Requirement of Reasoned Orders: The petitioners contended that the cancellation order was arbitrary and lacked explicit reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 2. Opportunity to be Heard: They argued that they were not afforded an opportunity to present their case before the cancellation, infringing upon their legitimate expectation of appointment.

Supreme Court’s Analysis: 1. Necessity of Reasons in Administrative Orders: • The Court emphasized that administrative orders affecting rights should ideally contain reasons to ensure transparency and accountability. However, it acknowledged that in cases involving mass malpractice, detailing individual reasons might not be feasible. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi & Ors. [(1991) 2 SCC 716], which held that while orders may not explicitly state reasons, the underlying record should indicate the rationale for the decision.  2. Mass Malpractice and Natural Justice: • The Court noted that when an examination process is tainted by large-scale irregularities, the entire selection process loses credibility. In such scenarios, providing individual hearings to each candidate before cancellation is impractical. The Court held that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction by canceling the selection list based on the CBI’s preliminary report, which provided sufficient material evidence of malpractice.  3. Legitimate Expectation: • Addressing the petitioners’ claim of legitimate expectation, the Court clarified that mere inclusion in a selection list does not confer an absolute right to appointment. The concept of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in situations where the selection process is vitiated by fraud or malpractice. The Court cited its decision in Asha Kaul & Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. [(1993) 2 SCC 573], emphasizing that candidates have a chance of appointment but not a vested right, especially when the selection process is compromised. 

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the authorities’ decision to cancel the selection list. The Court underscored that in instances of mass malpractice, administrative decisions made to uphold the integrity of the selection process do not necessarily require individual hearings or detailed reasons in the cancellation order, provided the decision is based on substantial evidence indicating malpractice. 

Significance:

This judgment highlights the balance between ensuring fairness to individuals and maintaining the integrity of public selection processes. It establishes that in cases of widespread examination malpractice, authorities are justified in taking decisive action without the procedural necessity of individual hearings, especially when such actions are supported by credible evidence.