7 WPA (P) 104 of 2022 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anuradha Bhasin (supra) has considered the scope of Rule 2(2) of the Rules of 2017 by holding that such an order must be a reasoned order and reasoning of the authorities and officers should indicate unavoidable circumstances necessitating passing of such an order. It has been so held in paragraph 94 of the judgment as under: “94. Rule 2(2) is also extremely important, as it lays down twin requirements for orders passed under Rule 2(1). First, it requires that every order passed by a competent authority under Rule 2(1) must be a reasoned order. This requirement must be read to extend not only to orders passed by a competent authority, but also to those orders passed by an authorised officer which is to be sent for subsequent confirmation to the competent authority. The reasoning of the authorised officer should not only indicate the necessity of the measure but also what the “unavoidable” circumstance was which necessitated his passing the order. The purpose of the aforesaid rule is to integrate the proportionality analysis within the framework of the Rules.” In the present case, the impugned order mentions about some intelligence reports but in the order of the Review Committee no such intelligence report has been mentioned nor any such report has been brought to the notice of this Court. The order of the Review Committee discloses that the impugned order has been issued to ensure the conduct of Madhamik Examination in free and