JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The Respondent herein appeared in the Engineering Services Examination ('ESE') conducted, in the year 1999, by the Union Public Service Commission ('UPSC'). A few months after the examination, the Respondent received a Notice, dated 29.3.2000, issued by the UPSC requiring him to show cause, if any, as to why action, as stipulated in the Notice, be not taken against him. The Notice read as under: I am directed to refer to your candidature for the above mentioned examination and to say that while checking your answer papers in Civil Engineering Paper II, it has been observed that the solutions to many questions in your answer sheet are similar to that of Shri Shailendra Kumar (Roll No. 10976). It has also been noticed that both of you have tried the same number of questions and, therefore, it is evidently a case of mutual copying. You have, thus, violated Instruction No. 13 of the "Instructions to Candidates" which is reproduced below: No candidate shall copy from the paper of any other candidate, nor permit his own paper to be copied, nor give, nor attempt to give, nor obtain, nor attempt to obtain irregular assistance of any description. 2. Your attention is also invited to para 6 of the notice of the examination which inter alia, provides that "a candidate who is or has been declared by the Commission to be guilty of using unfair means during the examination, may, in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution, be liable: (a) to be disqualified by the Commission from the examination for which he is a candidate and/or (b) to be debarred either permanently or for a specified period by the Commission from any examination or selection held by them. You are, therefore, required to explain the circumstances leading to the observation made in para 1 of this letter. Your reply to the show-cause notice should reach this office within 10 days of the date of issue of this letter, failing which your candidature is liable to be cancelled. 2. You are, therefore, required to explain the circumstances leading to the observation made in para 1 of this letter. Your reply to the show-cause notice should reach this office within 10 days of the date of issue of this letter, failing which your candidature is liable to be cancelled. 2. As can be noted from the above, in terms of the said show-cause notice, the allegation, made against the Respondent, was, in brief, that while checking his answer papers in the Civil Engineering Paper II, it had been observed that solutions to many of the questions in his (Respondents) answer sheets were similar to the ones, which one Shri Shailendra Kumar, who was also an examinee in the said examination, had attempted. The said show-cause notice, as can be noticed from the above, also informed the Respondent that since both he (i.e., the Respondent) and the said Shailendra Kumar had tried the same questions, it was evident, according to the UPSC, that there was a case of mutual copying and the Respondent has thereby violated Instruction No. 13 of the "Instructions to the candidates", which states that no candidate shall copy the paper of any oilier candidate, nor permit his own paper to be copied, nor give, nor attempt to give, nor obtain, nor attempt to obtain irregular assistance of any description. 3. The Respondent submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice. Responding to the said show-cause notice, the present Respondent contended in his letter, dated 3.4.2000, that he knows the said Shailendra Kumar since July, 1995, that is, for the last about four years, they had prepared for various competitive examinations together and they had shared, with each other, the notes, books, accommodation and kitchen and since he (Respondent) had been appearing in the Engineering Services Examination since 1994 and had not been able to qualify, he (Respondent) and the said Shailendra Kumar had decided to prepare selective topics thoroughly rather than all the topics superficially and it was, therefore, quite possible that some of their attempted questions would match. The Respondent, in his reply, dated 3.4.2000, further stated that he never ever, during the examination, tried to copy any question or shared views with the said Shailendra Kumar and that he denies the charges levelled against him. 4. The Respondent, in his reply, dated 3.4.2000, further stated that he never ever, during the examination, tried to copy any question or shared views with the said Shailendra Kumar and that he denies the charges levelled against him. 4. Reacting to the Respondent's reply aforementioned, the UPSC issued a letter, dated 14.8.2000, asking the Respondent to submit to them study materials and notes from which he had prepared for the said examination. To the letter so issued, the Respondent gave his reply by his letter, dated 24.8.2000, wherein he stated to the effect, inter alia, that he was enclosing with the said letter, some of the notes referred to during the preparatory stage of the examination. With his letter aforementioned, the Respondent also enclosed a list of text books with an explanation provided in the letter that even for preparation of selective topics, various text banks had to be referred to and sending of all the books and reference materials would require a bulky parcel to be sent. The Respondent therefore, requested the UPSC to look into the matter in the light of what he had stated in his letter and the list of books mentioned in the said list. In his letter, dated 24.8.2000, the Respondent also enclosed some materials by mentioning that he had taken postal coaching from an institute called "Brilliant Tutorials". Thereafter, the UPSC issued a letter, dated 9.10.2001, informing the Respondent that after considering his explanation, the UPSC had found that his explanation was not satisfactory, he had violated Rule 11(7) of the Rules for the Engineering Services Examination, 1999, and that the UPSC had, therefore, decided to debar him for a period of ten years, with effect from 25.7.2001, from all examinations and selections to be conducted by the UPSC and, further, that his candidature for Engineering Services Examinations, 1999, had been cancelled. Subsequent to the letter, dated 9.10.2001, aforementioned, the UPSC further informed the Respondent by its letter, dated 13.11.2001, that in addition to the fact that the Respondent had been debarred from all examinations and selections to be conducted by the UPSC for a period of ten years with effect from 25.7.2001, since the Respondent's Engineering Services Examination was held in the year 1999, the UPSC had decided to cancel his candidature for Engineering Services Examination, 2000, too. By another letter, which the Respondent addressed to the UPSC, he requested the UPSC to reconsider their decision. His letter did not, however, evoke any response. 5. The Respondent, then, came to this Court with a writ application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 35(SH)/2002, whereby he sought to get set aside and quashed the letter, dated 9.10.2001, whereby the Respondent had been debarred from appearing in Engineering Services Examination, 2000. By the writ petition, the Respondent also put to challenge the order, dated 13.11.2001, whereby his candidature for the Engineering Services Examination, 2000, had also been cancelled. By judgment and order, dated 19.9.2007, as a learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders impugned therein, the UPSC is before us with this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Appellants, and Mr. S. Sen, learned Counsel, for the Respondent. 7. While considering this appeal, it needs to be borne in mind that the said Shailendra Kumar, who too had been dealt with by the UPSC in the same manner as the Respondent had been, filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 620/2001. By judgment and order, dated 20.12.2006, the said writ petition has been dismissed and the actions and decisions of the UPSC, which form the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal, have been maintained. 8. It is pointed out, at the very outset on behalf of the Appellants, that in the present case, there are conflicting decisions arising out of the same facts and, hence, these irreconcilable decisions need to be resolved by this Court in this appeal. We must point out, in this regard, that we are required to examine the present appeal in the light of the pleadings and the materials placed in the writ petition, which has given rise to this appeal. Except for the fact, therefore, that a writ petition, arising out of the same set of facts, stand dismissed, we are required to keep our mind open. We, therefore, deal with this appeal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the materials placed on record and the law relevant thereto. 9. Except for the fact, therefore, that a writ petition, arising out of the same set of facts, stand dismissed, we are required to keep our mind open. We, therefore, deal with this appeal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the materials placed on record and the law relevant thereto. 9. Coming back to the present appeal, what is pertinent to note is that it is not in dispute that an administrative action or decision is subject to judicial review by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power of judicial review of administrative action is, however, limited inasmuch as what is open to challenge, and can be determined by way of judicial review, is the decision-making process and not the decision itself. It is, therefore, not the merit of the decision, but the decision-making process, which is examined by a High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. The High Court does not sit as an Appellant authority over the administrative action or decision even if it were to take a view different from what the administrator might have taken. The only circumstance where a decision may be upset by the High Court, apart from examining the decision-making process, is when the finding, reached by an administrator, is wholly perverse or so irrational that the finding cannot be accepted by a rational mind. So long as an administrator takes into account all such factors, which are relevant for the purpose of coming to a finding, and keeps eschewed from the purview of his consideration all such factors, which are irrelevant, the decision-making process cannot be interfered with unless there has been infraction of accepted principles of natural justice. 10. Bearing in mind the contours of the power of judicial review, when we turn to the facts of the present case, we notice that the UPSC clearly informed the Respondent that the solutions to many of the questions, in the Respondent's answer sheets, were similar to the ones, which another candidate, namely, Shailendra Kumar, had attempted or answered giving thereby rise to an inference that there was a case of mutual copying. By his letter, dated 3.4.2000, the Respondent did admit his association with the said Shailendra Kumar by stating that both of them had prepared for the examination, in question, together, but contended that they had used the same study materials and it was, therefore, quite likely that they had attempted the same questions and it was quite possible that there might have been similarities in the answers given by them. However, when the UPSC sought for making available to them the study materials and also the notes from which the Respondent and the said Shailendra Kumar had prepared for the examination, the Respondent gave merely a list of his reference materials and some notes, but did not give all the notes, which he had prepared either alone or along with the said Shailendra Kumar. As to why the Respondent could not send all the notes, which he had prepared, were not indicated in the Respondent's letter, dated 3.4.2000, aforementioned. 11. In the writ petition, the UPSC took the stand that the answers, which were given by the Respondent, were identical with the answers given by the said Shailendra Kumar. The correctness of this assertion has not been questioned before us. It has, however, been submitted, on behalf of the Respondent, that in the notice, dated 29.3.2000, the accusation made against the Respondent was that his answers were similar to those of the said Shailendra Kumar, whereas in the affidavit, the UPSC has made improvement on their earlier statement by stating that the answers of the Respondent and the said Shailendra Kumar were identical. 12. While dealing with the above aspect of the case, it needs to be pointed out that in the writ petition, no attempt was ever made to show, far less establish, that the answers, given by the Respondent, were not identical with those of the answers of the said Shailendra Kumar nor were the relevant answer scripts sought to be called for. There was, in fact, no dispute that the answers, given by the Respondent, were identical with the answers given by the said Shailendra Kumar. There was, in fact, no dispute that the answers, given by the Respondent, were identical with the answers given by the said Shailendra Kumar. Notwithstanding, therefore, the difference in the language, which the Respondent pointed out, the reality remains that the facts are not in dispute inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the Respondent as well as the said Shailendra Kumar had attempted the same questions and the answers, given by them, were identical. 13. We are, therefore, not inclined to take the view that notwithstanding the assertion of the UPSC to the effect that the Respondent's answers were identical to those of Shailendra Kumar, the answers were not identical. In fact, we are not as concerned, in the present case, with the decision reached by the UPSC as we are with their decision-making process. The decision-making process clearly reveals that the Respondent was given a notice to show-cause stating the ground as to why he was being proceeded against. The Respondent gave his reply. The UPSC, having examined the reply, sought for the notes and the study materials and, on the basis of whatever the Respondent had produced, the UPSC took the view that there was a case of mutual copying by the two candidates, namely, the Respondent and the said Shailendra Kumar. The Respondent has, thus, been given full and adequate opportunity to have his say in the matter. The decision is, however, against him. Should, therefore, this Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, interfere with the decision, was the question, which ought to have been considered in the writ petition. We do not find that the impugned judgment and order dealt with the decision-making process. 14. While considering the above aspect of the case, it is also to be borne in mind that the UPSC is a body of experts and it is for them, primarily, to conduct examinations and decide as to how the fairness, transparency, public faith and confidence be maintained in such examinations. Though in a different context, the decision in the case of Chairman, J and K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 59 , which the learned CGC has relied upon, cannot be said to be misplaced inasmuch as the Supreme Court in Feyaz Ahmed Malik (supra) has observed: 18. Though in a different context, the decision in the case of Chairman, J and K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 59 , which the learned CGC has relied upon, cannot be said to be misplaced inasmuch as the Supreme Court in Feyaz Ahmed Malik (supra) has observed: 18. While judging the authority or otherwise all steps taken by authorities of the Board to take action against candidates taking resort to mass malpractice it should be borne in mind that the Board is entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education and proper conduct of examinations. It is an expert body consisting of persons coming from different walks of life who are engaged in or interested in the field of education and have wide experience. The decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by courts. This Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha observed: (SCC pp.652-53, para 14) The universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence, etc., before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the university's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives will a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury. 20. Coming to the case on hand, as noted earlier, the High Court has quashed the notification issued by the Board as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and ultra vires the Act. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury. 20. Coming to the case on hand, as noted earlier, the High Court has quashed the notification issued by the Board as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and ultra vires the Act. Further the High Court has discussed at length how the Board should proceed in the matter and has issued directions regarding the principles to be followed and matters to be borne in mind by the Board while framing Rules and has even issued directions as to what some of the provisions of the Rules should be. From the discussions in the impugned judgment it is clear that the High Court has taken upon itself the task of finding out a scheme to tackle the problem of mass malpractice in examination. In our considered view the approach of the High Court in the matter is erroneous and this has vitiated the judgment. In matters concerning campus discipline of educational institutions and conduct of examinations the duty is primarily vested in the authorities in-charge of the institutions. In such matters the court should not try to substitute its own views in place of the authorities concerned nor thrust its views on them. That is not to say that the court cannot at all interfere with the decisions of the authorities in such matters. The court has undoubtedly the power to intervene to collect any error in complying with the provisions of the rules, regulations or notifications and to remedy any manifest injustice being perpetrated on the candidates. In judging the validity of a notification containing provisions regarding steps to be taken when a report of mass malpractice is received it is to be kept in mind whether the provisions contained in the notification are relevant for achieving the purpose for which the notification is issued and if it is found that the notification is relevant for and has a nexus with the purpose to be achieved then the notification cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court has failed to keep this principle in view while considering the validity of the notification in question. A notification cannot be struck down as discriminatory merely because in implementing the some injustice is likely to be suffered by some candidates. The High Court has failed to keep this principle in view while considering the validity of the notification in question. A notification cannot be struck down as discriminatory merely because in implementing the some injustice is likely to be suffered by some candidates. The impugned judgment does not show that the decision to strike down the two notifications is based on grounds sound in law and justified on facts. It is our considered view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and has to be quashed. 15. Though the case of Feyaz Ahmed Malik (supra) is a case of mass copying, the fact remains that the Supreme Court has observed that one has to bear in mind that the Board is entrusted with the power of maintaining higher standards of education and proper conduct of examinations, it is an expert body consisting of persons coming from different walks of life and, hence, the decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by courts, though it cannot be said that the court cannot at all interfere with the decision of the authorities in such matters. The Supreme Court has clarified that though the court has, undoubtedly, the power to intervene or correct any error in the decision of the Board, such interference is possible, when there is manifest injustice perpetrated on the candidate. 16. In the case at hand, the decision has been reached by the UPSC after considering the Respondent's reply to the said show-cause notice and the materials aforementioned. We do not find that the decision-making process suffers from any infraction of the principles of natural justice nor do we find that while taking the decision, the UPSC has taken into account any such factor, which it ought not to have taken into account, nor do we find that the UPSC has kept excluded from its consideration, any such factor, which it ought to have taken into account. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision, reached by the UPSC, cannot be said to be perverse or based on no material or so irrational that no rational mind can accept the same as correct. Situated, thus, we do not find any reason to interfere either with the decision-making process or with the decision. 17. Appearing on behalf of the Respondent, Mr. Situated, thus, we do not find any reason to interfere either with the decision-making process or with the decision. 17. Appearing on behalf of the Respondent, Mr. S. Sen, learned Counsel, has pointed out to this Court, and it has, indeed, been noted by the learned Single Judge too, that having disqualified the Respondent for a period of ten years and also having cancelled his candidature in respect of Engineering Services Examination, 1999, the UPSC issued another letter, dated 13.11.2001, whereby they cancelled the Respondent's candidature in respect of Engineering Services Examination, 2000, also. There can be no doubt that in terms of the letter, dated 9.10.2001, the Respondent's candidature in respect of the Engineering Services Examination, 2000, had not been interfered with and it has been subsequently cancelled by the letter, dated 13.11.2001, aforementioned. The question, however, is as to whether the penal action, so taken by the UPSC, calls for interference by this Court. 18. It is trite that the penalty, imposed by an administrator, cannot be interfered with by a high court, in exercise of its power of judicial review, unless the penalty is such that it shocks the conscience of the court. We have to, therefore, ask ourselves if the penalty, imposed on the Respondent, is such that it shocks the conscience of the court. While considering this aspect of the matter, it needs to be pointed out that a person, found guilty of using unfair means, during examination, may in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution, be liable to be disqualified by the Commission from the examination. In the present case, no criminal prosecution has been launched against the Respondent. Though he could have been debarred permanently from appearing in any examination to be conducted by the UPSC, he has been debarred from appearing in such examinations for a specified period of ten years. As these actions have been taken, because of the fact that the Respondent had been found, according to the UPSC, to have adopted unfair means in the examination in the year 1999, it was but obvious that the Respondent's candidature in Engineering Services Examination, 2000, was also required to be cancelled and has accordingly been cancelled. 19. The conclusion, reached by the learned Single Judge, is that the Respondent's candidature, for the year 2000, could not have been cancelled. 19. The conclusion, reached by the learned Single Judge, is that the Respondent's candidature, for the year 2000, could not have been cancelled. We have closely examined the impugned judgment and order, but we find that it has escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge that what was required to be examined, in the writ petition, was the decision-making process, and not the decision itself. At best, the rationale of the penalty could have been examined; but it has not been done. The aspects, which we have dealt with, appear to have escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. 20. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the impugned notice of show-cause, the findings reached by the UPSC, and the penalty, inflicted on the Respondent, did not, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 21. In the result and for the reasoned discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order, dated 19.9.2007. 22. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed