Davinder Singh & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors  INSC 848 (15 December 1995)
B.L. (J) Hansaria B.L. (J) Ramaswamy, K.
1996 SCC (1) 612 JT 1995 (9) 173 1995 SCALE (7)253
O R D
appeal by special leave arises from the common order passed by the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana on 30th May, 1994
in CWO No. 4635/95 and batch.
view of the allegations made in the appeal that selection of Constable was not
fair and was vitiated by ministerial interference, we had summoned the original
record and we have carefully perused the select list. Three officers had
participated in selecting the candidates and all of them had signed at the
bottom of each page of the select list.
P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that though one
candidate initially had failed, when the High Court had summoned the records
and noted on perusal thereof that he was not properly treated, it had directed
the Government to conduct the test afresh and he was, thereafter, selected. It
is next contended that there was over writings against the names of some
appellants in the select list which would extablish that some attempts were
made to see that they are failed.
is no tempering with remarks or the marks secured by the appellants, as appears
from the perusal of records.
against the first appellant, Davinder Singh, initially 10 marks were given and
two more marks were added making it 12.
remarks column, it was stated that he had failed in the parade. As regards
marks secured by other candidates, there is no over-writing against the marks
or entries made in the respective columns.
then contended that before this Court the appellants are only six and if fresh
opportunity is given to them for selection by an independent body of officers,
they would stand fair chances for success in the test and if they are selected,
it would be well and good and if they would fail, it would be the end of the
dispute. In that behalf, he also stated that though selection was made after
calling 40 candidates, out of which about 20 selected candidates happened to
have worked with some of the VIPs as gunmen etc., the selection does not appear
to be objective.
unable to accede to the contention. The selection process consisted of written
test and parade.
were given to each candidate and relevant entries were made against each in the
respective columns. In the remarks column entry was made against each candidate
who had failed disclosing the reason for failure. We do not find that the
officers in the selection committee were actuated by hostility against the
appellants. Though one candidate is said to be a relative of one of the
selecting officers, he got selected and the same may be bad, but we find that
selection was done objectively to select 40 candidates. We do not think that
selection was vitiated on account of the fact that some of the selected
candidates appeared to have worked with some VIPs as gunmen. We cannot assume
that on that account other selection was vitiated by any malice or error of
contention raised was that since the scheme has been scrapped, liberty may be
given for conducting a fresh test by independent body. Mr. K.C. Bajaj, learned
counsel for the respondents, stated that selection test cannot exclusively be
conducted for the applicants. It may not be proper to give any direction to
conduct any special test for the appellants alone unless we are satisfied that
the selection process is vitiated by mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power
or any other factor which goes to the root of the selection. Except that one of
the officer's relative was stated to be a member of the selection committee,
nothing worthwhile could be found from the record to hold that the selection is
vitiated by mala fides or is beset with illegality to give direction to make
fresh selection of the appellants.
not think that it is a case warranting interference and to give directions
sought for. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.