accomplishment or suitability of candidates for employment under the State — is an unquestionable requirement of the rationality of any examination process. Rationality is an indispensable aspect of public administration under our Constitution [ Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India , (1979) 3 SCC 489]. The authority of the State to take appropriate measures to maintain the purity of any examination process is unquestionable. It is too well settled a principle of law in light of the various earlier decisions of this Court that where there are allegations of the occurrence of large-scale malpractices in the course of the conduct of any examination process, the State or its instrumentalities are entitled to cancel the examination [ Per Chelameswar, J. : [ Nidhi Kaim v. State of M.P. , (2016) 7 SCC 615 at para 23 : 7 SCEC 611 : (SCC pp. 639-40)]“ 23 . Even otherwise, the argument of the appellants is required to be rejected for the following reasons : under the scheme of our Constitution, the executive power of the State is coextensive with its legislative power. In the absence of any operative legislation, the executive power could certainly be exercised to protect the public interest. The right of each one of the appellants herein for admission to the medical colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh is itself an emanation of the State's executive action. No doubt, even executive action of the State can create rights. Unless there is something either in the Constitution or law which prohibits the abrogation or abridgment of rights, it is permissible for the State to do so by executive action in accordance with some specified procedure of law. No doubt, that the overarching requirement of the Constitution is that every action of the State must be informed with reason and must be in public interest. Nothing has been brought to our notice which prohibits the impugned executive action. If it is established that the adoption of unfair means on large scale resulted in the contamination of the entrance examination (PMT) process of successive years, the State undoubtedly would have the power to take appropriate action to protect the public interest. I, therefore, reject the submission of the appellants.”;In Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey , (1994) 5 SCC 663 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1235 large-scale cheating occurred in the Railway Recruitment Board Examination, specifically in two rooms of a centre. The Board took a decision to subject the successful candidates from that centre to a re-examination. This was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that such a decision was taken in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was held that there cannot be any straitjacket formula for the application of the principles of natural justice. This Court did not find any fault with the decision to conduct a fresh examination.;In All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar , (2010) 6 SCC 614 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 293, large-scale malpractices surfaced in the written test. The recruitment board ordered a retest, which was challenged in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held that a retest was valid. The High Court reversed invoking the Wednesbury's principles of reasonableness. This Court held that in the face of such large-scale allegations supported by reports of the Vigilance Department and CBI, the High Court was wrong in reversing the tribunal's decision.]] . This Court has on numerous occasions approved the action of the State or its instrumentalities to cancel examinations whenever such action is believed to be necessary on the basis of some reasonable material to indicate that the examination process is vitiated. They are also not obliged to seek proof of each and
