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

PETITIONER: CONSTABLE DAVINDER SINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/12/1995

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

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 612        JT 1995 (9)   173  1995 SCALE  (7)253

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This 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.      In 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.      Shri  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  overwritings against the names of some appellants in the  select list which would extablish that some attempts were made to see that they are failed.      There is no tempering with remarks or the marks secured by the  appellants, as  appears from the perusal of records. As against the first appellant, Davinder Singh, initially 10 marks were given and two more marks were added making it 12. In the  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.      Shri Rao  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

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

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.      We  are   unable  to  accede  to  the  contention.  The selection process  consisted of  written  test  and  parade. Marks 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 law.      Further 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.      We  do   not  think   that  it  is  a  case  warranting interference and  to give directions sought for. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.