Judgment U. P. Singh, J. 1. -in this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to declare him successful in the written test of the 34 the Combined Competitive Examination of the Bihar Public Service commission and then to be called for interview. By an amendment application he has farther prayed for quashing ths two orders contained in annesures-E and F to the counter affidavit. 2. The petitioner completed graduation from the B, N. College in the year 1976-78. He obtained Masters Degree in Sociology from the Patna university. In the year 1985, he appeared at the Rangers Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission which commenced from 3-1-1986 and concluded on 5-1-1986. He appeared in the examination in all the papers and on all the three dates but since he did not perform well, he failed in the said examination. Thereafter, ho appeared at the 34th b. P. S. C. Competitive Civil Sercvices Examination which commenced from 19-9-1986 and finally carcluded eo 21-12-1986 His roll number was 28031. Apart from compulsory subjects, i. e. , General Hindi, General Knowledge, general Science, he had offered Sanskrit Language and Literature ai also pure Mathematics and Accounts as bis Optional Subjects. He belongs to the Backward Class. The Admit Card issued to him has been annexed marked Ancexure-1. The result of the said examination was published on the Notice Board of the office of the B. P, S. C. On 16-6-1988. The list of successful candidates included the name of this petitioner. The result cf the said examination wag also published in the local Hindi Daily (Patliputra times) en 17-6-1988 and the petitioner was surprised to find out that his name was missing from the said list of successful candidates. It is alleged that, on a perusal of the said result published in the newspapers, it would appear that there is a gap in between roll numbers 28016 and 20836. The roll number of the petitif ner was 28031. A photostat copy of the result has been annexed marked Annexure-2. Soon thereafter, the petitioner made enquiries from the office cf this B P. S. C. as to how his name has been deleted from the list of successful candidates. However, he could see big marks obtained in the said written examinetion. A photostat copy of the result has been annexed marked Annexure-2. Soon thereafter, the petitioner made enquiries from the office cf this B P. S. C. as to how his name has been deleted from the list of successful candidates. However, he could see big marks obtained in the said written examinetion. the details of which have been given in Paragraph 10 of this application and excluding the marks in hindi in general, the petitioner obtained 521 marks out of the total 850 marks. It is stated that the candidates of General category having secured a minimum of 510 marks were declared successful in the written test and the candidates in the category of Backward class who had obtained less marks were declared successful. 3. While making such enquiry about his result, he received Memo No.59 dated 21-6-1988 communicated by respondent No, 2, I. e. , the officer on special duty of Bihar Public Service Commission, asking him to explain the allegation, made for the first time, that he was expelled at the Rangers examination on 4-1-1986 for using unfairmeans in General Science paper. Then, on further enquiry from the office of the Bihar Public Service Commission, the petitioner could learn that, on account of the said allegation, his name has been deleted from the list of successful candidates of the 34th competitive Examination published on 17-6-1988. It was strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was never expelled from the Rangers Examination in question He was never asked to explain any such allegation prior to the issuance of Memo No.59 dated 21-6-1988. It was submitted that the issuance of the alleged memo in 1988 after about 2 1/2 years of the alleged incident was arbitrary and mala fide passed with a view to deprive the petitioner of the bees-fit of his success in the 34th Combined Competitive Examination, the result of which had been published only on 17-6-1988 although the said examination had been finally concluded on 21-12-1986, The Rangers Examination had even concluded earlier on 5-1- 988. If the petitioner would have been expelled then he would not have been allowed to appear in both these examinations. The petitioner had appeared in all the papers in the Rangers Examination and he was never expelled from that examination. He, in fact, failed having not faired well in the said examination. If the petitioner would have been expelled then he would not have been allowed to appear in both these examinations. The petitioner had appeared in all the papers in the Rangers Examination and he was never expelled from that examination. He, in fact, failed having not faired well in the said examination. He was cover asked to explain any such allegation ever before and this was levelled against him only after he came out successful having passed the 34th Combined Competitive examination. 4. However, the petitioner filed his show cause which is contained in annexure-4 wherein, all these details have been given. It appears that even before the issuance of Memo No.59 dated 21-6-1988 his name had been deleted from the list of successful candidates at the written examination and only after issuing the said memo and deleting his name he was asked to show cause regarding the so-called allegation about his expulsion from the rangers Examination. The petitioner was never offered any opportunity nor was any charge framed nor served on the petitioner before issuing the said memo No.59. No order has been passed on the show cause submitted by the petitioner which is contained in Annexure-4. Asa result of the deletion of his name from the list of successful candidates, having come out successful in the written test, the petitioner has been deprived from appearing at the oral interview and the age of the petitioner has also expired for appointment in any Government service. 5. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bihar public Service Commission is that as regards the Rangers Examination, 1986 is concerned, the case was reported by the Centre Superintendent on 4-1-1986 but no show cause could be issued to the petitioner earlier as his original application for the Rangers Officers Examination, 1986, where address of tha candidate was written, was net available in the office in spite of best efforts. It is alleged that the petitioner was caught red-bonded with the chit. A photostat copy of the expulsion note of the Centre Superintendent and the photostat copy of the chit forwarded by the Centre Superintendent along with the answer bock acd the photcetat copy of the relevant answer have been annexed marked Anntxures, A, B and C to the counter affidavit. A photostat copy of the expulsion note of the Centre Superintendent and the photostat copy of the chit forwarded by the Centre Superintendent along with the answer bock acd the photcetat copy of the relevant answer have been annexed marked Anntxures, A, B and C to the counter affidavit. As regard the 34th Combined Competitive Examination is concerned, in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that a detailed enquiry and examination of his answer book revealed that he indulged himself in getting the answers in the Optional papers written by others. After full consideration of the facts, the Bihar Public Service Commission issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 16-7-1988 marked Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. 6. In reply to the counter-affidavit, the petitioner has taken a firm stand and has categorically denied the allegation that he was ever caught redhanded with the chit and that the matter was reported by the Centre Superintendent of Examinations on 4-1-1936 at the Dangers Examination. The falsity of this is obvious from the fact trat the petitioner was allowed to appear in the said examination even on 5-1-1986, the very next day. According to the general instruction given to the candidates along wifh the Admit cards, it is provided that any candidate guilty of misconduct shall be thrown out of the examination hall and the matter will be reported. Instruction No.26 stipulates that the said candidate will not be allowed to appear in other papers. The admitted position is that the petitioner had appeared at the examination even on 5-1-1986 and, therefore, if he would have been cought red-handed, he would not have been allowed to appear in the said examination, the very next day, i. e. on 5-1-1986 The alleged note of the centre superintendent and the cbit are all forged and fablicated documents created for the purpose of this case. The alleged chit is not in the writing of the petitioner In the first instance, the Bihar Public Service Commission took the plea that the petitioner had been expelled at the Rangers Examination and now subsequently, after this writ application was filed on 8-7-1988 and notice issued on 12-7-1988 a new plea was taken that he used unfairmeans at the 34th Combined Competitive Examination. If the petitioner had been expelled in the earlier Rangers Examination and if the report was made against him then it does not appear reasonable how the Commission issued the Admit Card permitting him to appear at the 34th Combined Competitive examination. 7. In the supplementary counter affidavit, it is stated that, on the show cause petition dated 26-6-1988 submitted by the petitioner, a decision taken in regard to the commission of unfairmeans in the Forest Ranger Officers examination, 1986 was communicated to the petitioner under Memo No.47 dated 17-12-1988. By the said decision, the petitioner was disqualified in m-pect of Forest Ranger Officers Examination, 1986, and he wag also debarred for one sear with effect from 4-1-1986 from all the examinations of the Commission. The letter dated 17-12-1988 has been annexed marked annexure-E to the supplementary counter-affidavit. Another decision of the commission on the show cause petition dated 2-7-1988 filed by the petitioner in regard to the commission of unfairraeans in the 34th Combined competitive Examination was communicated under Memo No.172 dated 20-12-1988 by which the petitioner was informed that his answer books of sanskrit language and literature has been cancelled for using unfairmeans. The said letter is contained in Annexure-F to the Supplementary counter-affidavit. 8. These allegations have been seriously refuted in the amendment petition. It was necessitated because of the fact that the respondents have now chosen to impose punishment after rejecting the show came filed by the petitioner and the decisions have been communicated vide Memo No.47 dated 17-12-1988 and Memo No.172 dated 20-12-1988. It has been pointed out that the show cause issued vide Annexuree-3 un 21-6-1988 to which the petitioner had submitted his reply (Annexure-4) on 27-6-1988, the said show cause had not been disposed of till 12-7-1988 when this court issued notice to respondents 1 and 2 as to why the writ application filed on 8-7-1988 be not admitted. After several adjournments, the show cause was filed. In reply the petitioner filed rejoinder. Thereafter, this couit asked the respondents to dispose of the show cause submitted by (he petitioner. Then the respondents filed an affidavit with copies of the alleged orders reported to have been passed on 17-12-1988 and 20-12-1988. 9. After several adjournments, the show cause was filed. In reply the petitioner filed rejoinder. Thereafter, this couit asked the respondents to dispose of the show cause submitted by (he petitioner. Then the respondents filed an affidavit with copies of the alleged orders reported to have been passed on 17-12-1988 and 20-12-1988. 9. On tbess undisputed facts, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that, prior to 20-12-1988, intimating that his examination has been cancelled, the said order had never been communicated to the petitioner. The order was passed for the first time on 17-12-1988. At no point of time, the petitioner was ever informed by any communication that he bad been expelled from the Rangers Examination, The petitioner had already appeared in the subsequent examinations Even while he was permitted to appear at the 34th Combined Competitive Examination, he was never informed that he had been expelled and disqualified from appearing at the examination. Before any action for disqualification was taken or issued on 20-6-1988 the petitioner was not even heard prior to any such action taken against him- The action for disqualification was issued on 20-6-1988 after the action hid already been taken against him to debar from sitting at the 34th Combined Competitive examination held on 19th September 1986. No statement was made by the centre Superintendent of Examinations at any point of time in presence of the petitioner nor was any report of the Centre Superintendent ever shown or communicated rated to the petitioner Except for admitting that the answer book was his, the petitioner made no other statement before the Commission in fact, the Commission wanted to confront from the Centre Superintendent of the Examinations to the petitioner but the Centre Superintendent did not turn up. The petitiocer danies the knowledge of she alleged chit. The Centre superintendent did not support the receipt of the chit from the petitioner or the fact that the chit was found in the answer book of the petitioner at the rangers Examination. To the knowledge of the petitioner, no such statement was ever made by the Centre Superintendent of the Rangers Examination. He was never communicated with any order of expulsion. The so-called action taken to debar the petitioner from appearing at the examination was ex-post facto, namely, after he had already been debarred from appearing at the -4th Combined Competitive Examination and its result published. He was never communicated with any order of expulsion. The so-called action taken to debar the petitioner from appearing at the examination was ex-post facto, namely, after he had already been debarred from appearing at the -4th Combined Competitive Examination and its result published. His examination was over but no expulsi on order was communicated to him. He was not aware of any signature being put by any one of the two invigilators present at the examination. The petitioner was neither shown the copy nor was ha asked to explain how different invigilators signed on different papers. According to normal rules, an examinee submits his answer book which is taken and sent to the Commission, The petitioner submitted his answer book to one of the two invigilators in the Examination Hall and he was not aware as two who signed which answer book. None of the invigilators disowned the receipt of the answer book either in writing or in presence of the petitioner. It would certainly be absure to suggest that the petitioner could get different persons sign in the answer book in order to create material against him in the office of the Commission, though it is not a matter for the petitioner. The petitioner was nr. t aware as to how and in what circumstances the signatures were made on his answer books after they hud been received from him. Admittedly, no enquiry was made nor was any action taken before the petitioners result of the 34th Combined Competitive Examination was withheld. 10. By the decisions contained in Memo No.47 dated 17-12-1988 the petitioner has been disqualified in respect of Forest Rangers Examination, 1986 and he has also been debarred from all examinations of the Commission with effect from 4-1-1986 with retrospective effect. By the decision contained in Memo No.172 dated 20-12-1988 the answer book of Sanskrit language and literature has been cancelled for use of unfairmeans (Annexure-E and F to the counter affidavit ). It was contended that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by Memo No.47 dated 17-12-1988 in respect of Rangers examination cannot be sustained iii law inasmuch as the effect of the same is retrospective in nature. Theic was no finding of the Commission that the petitioner was expelled from the Examination Hall. It was contended that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by Memo No.47 dated 17-12-1988 in respect of Rangers examination cannot be sustained iii law inasmuch as the effect of the same is retrospective in nature. Theic was no finding of the Commission that the petitioner was expelled from the Examination Hall. The explanation given in the counter-affidavit that the address of the petitioner was not available and, therefore, it took 2 1/2 years, after the alleged incident, for the Commission to issue notice to show cause cannot be accepted for the reason that the address of the petitioner could have been easily obtained from the Attendance sheet itself in which the address of the candidate was mentioned. 11. In so far as the show cause notice issued in respect of the 34th combined Competitive Examination is concerned, it was contended that the decision to cancel the answer book of Sanskrit language and literature was illegal and arbitrary and was passed mala fide after knowing fully well that the allegation about the use of unfairmeans at the Rangers Examination, 1986, could not be sustained. It has already been pointed out that the petitioner was not shown the answer book. The Centre Superintendent of Examination competent to have been examined by the Commission because he was the most competent person to state as to how the signature of the Centre Superintendent of Examination on the answer book of the petitioner did not tally with those found in the answer books of other candidates. The petitioner was never shown the answer book and he was not in a position either to examine or deny the said fact. In this situation, it was moat essential for the Commission to have examined the Centre Superintendent of Examination. Thus, the decision to cancel the answer book of Sanskrit language and literature was passed upon a finding not supported by any cogent material. 12. In these circumstances, ex-post facto two orders communicated by annexure-E and F were intended with a view to cover up the mala fide action and is, therefore, fit to be quashed. The so-called action to debar the petitioner from appearing in the examination was ex-post facto namely, after he had already been debarred from appearing at the 34th Combined Competitive examination and its result published. 13. The so-called action to debar the petitioner from appearing in the examination was ex-post facto namely, after he had already been debarred from appearing at the 34th Combined Competitive examination and its result published. 13. In the second supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner, further stand taken was that in Columns 12 and 13 of the application form submitted for the 34th Combined Competitive Examination on 26-6-1986 the petitioner intentionally omitted to mention the fact that he had appeared at the Rangers Examination and further that he was expelled from that examination on 4-1-1986. In reply thereto the petitioner stated that he did pot conceal anything from the Commission. Column No 12 of the application form spoke only about the Combined Competitive Examination and the petitioner correctly mentioned in the said column that he had appeared at the 33rd Competitive Examination. The combined competitive examination does not include Forest Ranger Officers Examination, as it is altogether different from the Combined Competitive Examination. In this connection, it would be relevant to notice that now from the 36th Competitive examination there has been a change in Column No.12 as instead of the words "any combined competitive examination", it is now mentioned as "any examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commistion. " the photostat copy of the application form for the 36th Combined Competitive examination has been annexed marked Annexure-8. The petitioner emphatically asserted all the time that he was never expelled from any examination and, thus, no question of giving such information ever arose. The order of expulsion was communicated to him only after filing of the present writ application, 14. In the case of K L. Shephard and others V/s. Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 431 , the Supreme Court observed :- "fair play is a part of the public policy and is a guarantee for justice to citizens. In our system of Rule of law every social agency conferred with power is required to act fairly so that social action would be just and there would be furtherance of the well-being of citizens. The rules of natural justice have developed with the growth of civilisation and the content thereof is often considered as a proper measure of the level of civilisation and Rule of law prevailing in the community. The rules of natural justice have developed with the growth of civilisation and the content thereof is often considered as a proper measure of the level of civilisation and Rule of law prevailing in the community. Man within the social frame has struggled for centuries to bring into the community the concept of fairness and it has taken spores of years for the rules of natural justice to conceptually enter into the filed of social activities. " In the said case, the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court had proposed a post-amalgamation hearing to meet the situation bat that was not accepted by the Division Bench and on appeal their lordships of the Supreme court said :- ". . . For the reasons we have indicated, thare is no justification to think of a post decisional hearing. Oa the other hand the normal rule should apply. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that the excluded employees could now represent and their cases could be examined. We do not think that would meet the ends of justice. They have already been thrown out of employment and having been deprived cf livelihood they must be facing serious difficulties. There is no justification tt throw them out of employment and then give them an opportunity of representation when the requirement is thai they should have the opportunity referred to above as a condition precedent to action. It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose" 15. In the case of H. L. Trehan and others V/s. Union of India and others, (1989) 1 SCC 764 , the Supreme Court held that the post decisional opportunity of hearing does not subserve the rules of natural justice. The authority who embarks upon a post decisional hearing will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance cf getting a proper consideration of the representation at such a post decisional opportunity. Reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of K L Shephard v Union of India (Supra ). 16. In the case of Management of M/s. M. S. Nally Bharat Engineering co. Reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of K L Shephard v Union of India (Supra ). 16. In the case of Management of M/s. M. S. Nally Bharat Engineering co. Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar and others (1990) 2 SCC 48 , their lordships of the Supreme Court shared the view expressed by professor Jackson and said:- ". . . Fairness, in our opinion, is a fundamental Principle of good administration. It is a rule to ensure the vast power in the modern state is not abuaed but propeily exercised. The State power is usel for proper and not for improper purposes The authority is not misguided by extraneous or irrelegant (sic) considerations. Fairness is also a principle to ensure that statutory authority arrives at a just decision either in promoting the interest or affecting rights of persons. To use the time hallowed phrase "that justice should not only be done but be seen to he done" is the essence of fairness equally applicable to administrative authorities. Fairness is thus a prime test for proper aad good administration. It has no set form or procedure. It depends upon the fscts of each case. . . . . . " "it may be noted that the terms fairness of procedure, fair play in action, duty to act fairly are perhaps used as alternatives to "natural justice" without drawing any distinction. But Prof. Paul Jackson points out that such phrases may sometimes be used to refer not to the obligation to observe the principles of natural justice but, on the cont rary, to refer to a standard of behaviour which, increasingly, the courts require to be fallowed even in circumstances where the duly to observe natural justice is inapplicable. " 17. After giving anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case appearing from various affidavits, I hold that ex pout facto two orders communicated by Anuexure-E and F to the counter-affidavit would not be compliance of the rules cf natural justice or avoid the mischief of arbitrariness as contemplated by Article 14 of the Constitution. The Commission and its authorities were misguided by irrelevant considerations. The Commission and its authorities were misguided by irrelevant considerations. The unfairness on the part of the Coinmiision has been fully demonstrated and the petitioner has been most unfairly dealt with In fairness to all concern and in particular to those whose career is at stake, the Commission should not take two years or more to publish tha results. Such long delay in publication of results would make some of thew over age in getting Government set vice. The people would then start loosing faith in such institutions. In the present case, fair play in action, fairness of procedure and duty to act fairly, which are used as alternatives to natural justice has been fully demonstrated to have been violated by the Commission. Its power has been most improperly exercised and justice has been denied to the petitioner. The commission is, therefore, directed to declare the petitioner successful in the written test of 34th Combined Competitive Examination and call the petitioner for interview. The two orders contained in Annexure-E and F to the counter-affidavit are qnashsd and the application is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs, writ Application allowed.