ORDER M. Katju and Poonam Srivastava, JJ.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 15.4.1998. The facts of the case are that the U. P. Government took a policy decision to provide employment to Urdu knowing persons by absorbing them on the post of Urdu translators in various departments of the State. In the month of August, 1984, 5,061 posts were sanctioned in the various Departments of the State. It was stipulated that one post each in all the offices of departmental heads both at divisional and district level were to be filled in by such Urdu translators.
3. In pursuance of that policy the District Magistrate, Deorla, initiated proceedings for recruitment of Urdu translators. The posts were advertised and a written test was held on 25.12.1994 and a select list of 58 candidates was published on 12.1.1995. From that list certain persons were appointed in different departments, e.g., in police, education, etc. It appears that certain complaints of corruption and favouritism in the selection process were made to the State Government and the State Government by order dated 20.6.1995 directed the District Magistrate to make an enquiry regarding the complaints. The District Magistrate entrusted the enquiry to the S.D.O., Salempur, Deoria, for making enquiries. On the basis of the enquiry report the District Magistrate wrote a letter dated 12.7.1995 to the State Government and on that basis the State Government cancelled the examination on 7.8.1995.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order a writ petition was filed in this Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment.
5. The learned single Judge has observed that there was no evidence of corruption or favouritism. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has erred in law by making this observation. The learned single Judge while disposing of the writ petition should not have interfered with the findings of fact in the enquiry report. It is well-settled that a writ lies when there is error of law apparent on the face of the record. In writ Jurisdiction this Court cannot interfere with findings of fact. Whether there was corruption or favouritism was a question of fact and the learned single Judge should not have interfered with the findings of fact in this connection.
6. We are fortified by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Biswa Ranjan Sahoo v. Sushanta Kumar, JT 1996 (6) SC 515 ; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India, JT 1996 (8) SC 510, etc. and the Division Bench decision of this Court in P.K. Rai v. L.I.C. of India, 2000 (1) AWC 776. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11, the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions has been considered in great detail and it has been held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over administrative decisions. It can only interfere when there is arbitrariness in the Wednesbury sense. The modern trend points to judicial restraint with respect to administrative decisions.
7. The same view has been taken in another Division Bench decision Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002, Pushpak Jyoti v. State of U. P. and Ors., decided on 11.12.2003.
8. For the reasons given above this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 15.4.1998 is set aside.