http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GANGAL RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 716        JT 1995 (9)   220  1995 SCALE  (7)300

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      The  appellant  specifically  raised  a  plea  that  on January 1,  1993 result  of  the  examination  conducted  in December 1992  was declared  and two  candidates  were  duly declared to  have been  selected and appointed. Appellant is one  of   the  candidates   who  claimed   their  right  for consideration for  selection as  Road Inspector  in the said examination. It  is now  an admitted  fact that  on July 16, 1993, 14  more candidates  came to be appointed by promotion as Road  Inspectors. When  the appellant  claimed relief  by filing Writ  Petition No.10306/93,  the High Court dismissed the writ petition on February 10, 1994. After the notice was served, the respondents filed a counter-affidavit contending that subsequently  14 vacancies  had arisen in the promotion quota and,  therefore, they  were duly declared to have been selected and  appointed. With  a view  to satisfy  ourselves about the  correctness and  legality of  the action taken by the  respondents,  on  September  11,  1995  we  passed  the following order:      "Though in  the counter-affidavit  it is      stated that  the results  of the rest of      the candidates  were announced  on  July      16, 1993  for the reason that subsequent      to the appointment of the two candidates      on  January   1,  1993   some  vacancies      reserved  for   promotion   quota   from      Mastrys  had   arisen,  no   documentary      evidence in  support of the averment has      been placed  by the respondents. Learned      counsel seeks  for an  is  granted  four      weeks’ time  for producing the record to      justify whether the vacancies had arisen      and if  so, how  many and  on what basis      the appointments by promotion came to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    made."      No record has been produced. Ms. Nisha, learned counsel appearing  for  the  State  sought  further  opportunity  to produce the  file but we decline to grant further time since no explanation has been given as to under what circumstances the record has not been produced even till date. Under these circumstances, we  are left  with no  option but  to proceed with the matter on the basis of the material on record.      Shri D.K.  Garg,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant, contended  that the appellant apprehends that the action was  taken by  the respondents  only after committing illegal  acts   of  taking  bribe  and  14  candidates  were appointed without  any  selection.  We  find  force  in  the contention. In view of the fact that the record has not been produced, we  have to  draw adverse  inference  against  the respondents for  non-production of the record and proceed on the footing that had the record been produced the same would have proved  unfavourable to  them  and  their  actions  are brittled with  illegalities and  to cover  up  the  same  no record has been produced. Obviously, examination having been conducted in  December 1992  and the result declared and two selected candidates having been appointed on January 1, 1993 the result  of the  examination stands  concluded. It is not the case,  however, that any fresh examination was conducted giving opportunity  to all  the candidates  to  offer  their candidature for  consideration and  that 14  candidates were selected,  who  were  respondents  in  other  writ  petition disposed of  by the High Court, though not impleaded in this case. We  do not  propose to  set aside  their selection  as their appointments  have become  final since  they  are  not impleaded as  party-respondents  to  this  appeal.  However, things are  not appearing  to be  innocuous as stated in the counter-affidavit filed  by the  Chief Engineer. It would be obvious that  those promotions to 14 persons came to be made after demand  and acceptance  of illegal  gratifications  in that  behalf  by  the  concerned  persons  involved  in  the appointments. Otherwise,  nothing prvented  the  respondents from producing  the record  before the  Court to justify the correctness and  legality of  the action  taken by  them. In these  circumstances,  we  are  constrained  to  make  these observations.  However,  no  relief  can  be  given  to  the appellant as  he was  neither selected  nor was  kept in the waiting list.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.