Jagtar
Singh Vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors [1993] INSC 216 (13 April 1993)
Kuldip
Singh (J) Kuldip Singh (J) Yogeshwar Dayal (J)
CITATION:
1993 SCR (3) 77 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 49 JT 1993 (2) 703 1993 SCALE (2)553
ACT:
Service
Law: Appointment-Verification of antecedents and character--Found
undesirable-Denial of appointment to selected candidate--Conclusion based on a
single incident- Whether justified.
HEAD NOTE:
The
appellant was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment
to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation. He
was medically examined and found fit. Though the (other candidates selected
along with the appellant were appointed, no appointment order in respect of the
appellant was issued.
After
waiting for some time he submitted a representation to Respondent No. 1 and
another representation to the Government of India. Since there was no response
from either of the authorities, he riled an application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the respondents contended that it
was found that the appellant %%,as not a suitable person for appointment to the
post of Senior Public Prosecutor and riled documents containing reasons therefor
in sealed cover. Privilege was also claimed. The Tribunal did not open the
sealed cover and relying upon the averments made in the affidavit, dismissed
the application of the appellant. The present appeal is against the judgment of
the Tribunal.
Dismissing
the appeal, this Court,
HELD:
1. 1.
The appellant has been unjustifiably denied his right to be appointed to the
post to which he was selected and recommended by the Union Public Service
Commission. No reasonable person, on the basis of the material on record can
come to the conclusion that the appellant's antecedents and character are such
that he Is unfit to be appointed to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. There
has been total lack of application of mind on the part of the respondents. Only
on the basis of surmises and conjectures arising out of a single incident 78
which happened in the year 1983 it has been concluded that the appellant is not
a desirable person to be appointed to Government service (80-C-D).
1.2.
Ordinarily this court would have directed the respondents to appoint the
appellant, but keeping in view the time lapse and the appellant has already
entered 50th year of his age and has put in about 23 years of practice as an
advocate, it would not be in the interest of justice to issue a direction to
that effect (80-F).
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1732 of 1993.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal
in Registration O.A. No. 123/86.
V.C. Mahajan,
Gauray Jain and Ms. Abha Jain for the Appellant.
N. N. Goswami,
Tara Chand Sharma and C. V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
The judgement
of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J. Special leave granted.
The
appellant was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment
to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. By a letter dated July 16, 1984 he, along with two other
candidates, was recommended for appointment to the said post. Ail intimation to
this effect was also received by the appellant. He was medically examined on August 29, 1984 and was found fit. Other candidates
selected along with the appellant were appointed but no appointment order in
respect of the appellant was issued. After waiting for some time he submitted a
representation to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation on February 8, 1985 and another representa- tion to the
Government of India on May
13,1985. No reply
having been received from either of the authorities, he filed an application
before 79 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad on February
25, 1986 seeking
mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him to the post of Senior Public
Prosecutor. The respondents in their counter before the Tribunal stated that
after the receipt of recommendation from the Union Public Service Commission
other formalities were gone into and it was found that the appellant was not a
suitable person for appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. The
respondents filed the documents containing reasons for the unsuitability of the
appellant, in sealed cover, before the Tribunal. An affidavit claiming
privilege was also filed.The Tribunal did not open the sealed cover and relying
upon the averments in the counter filed by the respondents dismissed the
application of the appellant. This appeal by way of special leave is against
the judgment of the Tribunal.
Before
us an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Dandipani, Secretary to the Government of
India in the Ministry of Personnel , Public Grievances and Pensions. Department
of Personnel and Training, claiming privilege in respect of the documents which
contain reasons to show that the appellant is not a suitable person for
appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. The documents are in a
sealed cover. In para 4 of the affidavit it is stated is under:
"
However, I have no objection to the aforesaid records being produced for
perusal by the Hon'ble
Court for satisfying,
itself about the bonafides and genuineness of the privilege." Mr. D.P. Gupta,
learned Solicitor General has filed copies of the documents for our
consideration. It is not disputed that the District Magistrate. Nainital by his
letter dated September
20, 1984 reported that
there was no adverse entry against the appellant in the records of the Chowki Kathgodami
which might affect his appointment as a Government servant. The District
Magistrate's letter letter was based on the verification done by incharge Chowki
Kathgodam. Police Station Haldwani, Senior Sub-Inspector Local Intelligence
Unit Nainital and finally by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital who
appended the endorsement "character verified and found correct". Not
satisfied with the initial verification in favour of the appellant further
investigations were made regarding his character and antecedents and it was 80
finally concluded that the appellant was not a suitable person to be appointed
to the Government service. It is not necessary for us to go into the question
as to whether the claim of privilege by the respondents is justified or not.
We
also do not wish to go into the details of the investigations made regarding
the antecedents and character of the appellant. We have carefully examined the
material on the basis of which the respondents have come to the conclusion that
the appellant is not suitable for appointment to the post of Senior Public
Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigation and we are of the view that
the respondents are not justified in reaching a conclusion adverse to the appellant.
No reasonable person, on the basis of the material placed before us, can come
to the conclusion that the appellant's antecedents and character ire such that
he is unfit to be appointed to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. There has
been total lack of application of mind on the part of the respondents. Only on
the basis of surmises and Conjuctures arising out of a single incident which
happened in the year 1983 it has been concluded that the appellant is not a
desirable person to be appointed to the Government service. We are of the view
that the appellant has been unjustifiably denied his right to be appointed to
the post to which he was selected and recommended by the Union Public Service
Commission.
Having
found that the respondents were not justified in refusing to appoint the
appellant, ordinarily, we would have directed (he respondents to appoint the
appellant, but keeping in view the time lapse and further that the appellant
has already entered 50th year of his age and has put in about 23 years of
practice as in advocate, we are of the view that it would not be in the
interest of justice to issue a direction to that effect. We, therefore. dismiss
the appeal but under the circumstances we direct that the respondents shall pay
the costs of the litigation to the appellant which we quantify as Rs.10, 000.
G.N.
Appeal dismissed.
Back