GOHIL VISHVARAJ HANUBHAI & Ors. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & Ors.

1.4 The principle of Wednesbury's unreasonableness is that "a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied D his mind to the question to be dedded could have arrived at it". Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the prima facie proof indicating the possibility of occurrence of large scale tampering with the examination process which led to the impugned action, it cannot be said that the impugned action of the respondent is "so outrageous in its defiance of logic" or "woral standards". (Para 24J(412-E; 413-A-B) E

1.5 There were large scale malpractices at the examination process and the State was entitled to take appropriate remedial action. In such malpractice obviously there can be two classes of candidates: those who had resorted to malpractice and others F who did not. By the impugned action, no doubt, all of them were treated alike. (Para 29J(415-D-EJ

1.6 Identifying all the candidates who are guilty of malpractice either by criminal prosecution or even by an administrative enquiry is certainly a time consuming process. If G it were to be the requirement of law that such identification of the wrong doers is a must and only the identified wrongdoers be eliminated from the selection process, and until such identification is completed the process cannot be carried on, it would not only result in a great inconvenience to the administration, but ;ilso H 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E result in a loss of time even to the innocent candidates. On the other hand, by virtue of the impugned action, the innocent candidates (all candidates including wrong doers) 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 at the examination together. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.[Paras 29, 301[415-F-H; 416-A-B)