http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: JAGTAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/04/1993

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: 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.

HEADNOTE: 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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).

JUDGMENT: 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."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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. 81