M. KATJU, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned letter dated 15. 10. 1999 and the order dated 13. 3. 2001, Annexures-1, 1a and 10 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondent to declare the result of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Station Master. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 15. 10. 1999 by which the Railway Board has cancelled the recruitment conducted for the post of Assistant Station Master. True copy of the letter dated 15. 10. 1999 is Annexure-1 to the petition. That order states that the Railway Board has decided to cancel the aforesaid examination on the basis of the report of the Chairman. Railway Board, that there were serious irregularities and malpractices in the conduct of the examination. ( 3 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioners appeared in the written examination held on 23. 6. 1996 for the post of Assistant Station Master and were declared successful vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. They were required to appear in the Interview and psychological test. In paragraph 5 of the petition. It is stated that after completion of the interview and psychological test held by the Railway Recruitment Board and before the final result could be declared, a petition being Original Application No. 398 of 1997. Ram Kumar and others v. General Manager and others, was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal by the candidates who failed in the written test. In this petition, the Tribunal passed an interim order restraining the Railway Recruitment Board from declaring the final result. In the meantime some more petitions were filed before the Tribunal viz. O. A. No. 461 of 1997, 627 of 1997 and O. A. No. 635 of 1997 raising the same issues. O. A. Nos. 398 and 461 of 1997 were disposed of by the tribunal by order dated 29. 4. 1999 and the Railway Recruitment Board was directed to get an inquiry conducted into the matter. True copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 29. 4. 1999 is annexure-3 to the petition. The other petition was also disposed of by the Tribunal similarly on 23. 8. 1999. 4. 1999 and the Railway Recruitment Board was directed to get an inquiry conducted into the matter. True copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 29. 4. 1999 is annexure-3 to the petition. The other petition was also disposed of by the Tribunal similarly on 23. 8. 1999. ( 4 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that in O. A. No. 398 of 1997, the Chairman, railway Recruitment Board has filed an application stating that there was no malpractice vide annexure-5 to the writ petition. However, the Railway Board has cancelled the examination vide annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that the result should have been declared. In paragraph 25. it is stated that 28,000 candidates appeared in the writter test and only 954 candidates were declared successful in the same. ( 5 ) THE application filed before the Tribunal has been rejected, hence this petition. ( 6 ) WE have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal, paragraph 2 of the same shows that the chairman Railway Board conducted an Inquiry and found that a large number of answersheets do not tally with the original lots of answer sheets/question booklets given to the candidates and were changed fraudulently. The Chairman found that the marks of the written examination were by and large known to unauthorized persons and hence the selection proceedings are vitiated. ( 7 ) THE decision to cancel an examination is an administrative decision and there is very little scope of judicial review of the same unless it is wholly arbitrary. In the present case, it cannot be said that the decision of the Railway Board was arbitrary, rather it was based on an inquiry by the Chairman who found irregularities in the same. No doubt the Chairman of the Railway recruitment Board has given a different opinion in one of his affidavits in another petition, but this Court cannot in writ Jurisdiction weigh the evidence and come to a different conclusion. The scope of Judicial review has been considered at length by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 . As held in that decision, it is not for the Court to consider whether a policy or decision is fair. The Court is only concerned with the manner in which the decision has been taken. As held in that decision, it is not for the Court to consider whether a policy or decision is fair. The Court is only concerned with the manner in which the decision has been taken. The Court does not sit as a court of appeal to review the administrative decision, and hence the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters is limited. In Pramod Kumar Rai v. L. I. C. , 2000 (84) FLR 724. this Court dismissed a similar petition, relying on its own decision In Union of India a. Akchhay Kumar Singh, 1999 (4)AWC 3664. ( 8 ) HENCE there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. .