CONSTABLE DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 15-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CONSTABLE DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 15, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J 
Se1vice Law-Selection of Constables-Selection process-Written test 
and parade-Reasons disclosed by the Selection Committee in respect of 
failed candidates-Selection was done objectively-No arbitrary exercise of 
C power and hence no need for fresh selection test. 
D 
Appellants were among the 40 candidates who were called for the 
selection of constables. Selection committee was constituted of three of-
ficers. Out of 40 candidates 20 were selected after a selection process which 
consisted of written test and parade. 
The failed candidates approached the High Court and one of them 
was found to be not treated properly and the High Court ordered for the 
fresh test and that candidate was selected. Other candidates approached 
this court with an appeal. 
E 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that selection of con-
stable was not fair and was vitiated by ministerial interference. And also, 
that selected candidates happened to have worked with some of the VIPs as 
gunmen etc. Therefore selection does not appear to be objective. It was 
further contended that over-writings against the names of some appellants 
F 
in the select list establish that some attempts were made to see that they 
are failed. Appellants sought a direction that a fresh opportunity should be 
given to them by conducting the test afresh by an independent body of 
ollicers. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Selection was done objectively and was not vitiated on 
account of the fact that some of the selected candidates appeared to have 
worked with some VIPs, as gunmen. [788-G] 
1.2. The selection process consisted of both written test and parade. 
H Marks were given to each candidate and relevant entries were made against 
786 
• 
DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE 
787 
each in the respective columns. In the remarks column entry was made A 
against each candidate who had failed, disclosing reason for failure. 
[788-E] 
1.3. There is no tampering with the remarks or the marks secured by 
the appellants. As against the first appellant, in the remarks column, it was 
stated that he had failed in the parade. Thus there is no over-writing B 
against the marks or entries made in the respective columns against the 
candidates. [788-B] 
2. Nothing worthwhile could be found from the record to hold that 
the selection is vitiated by malafides or is beset with illegality to give direc-
tion to make fresh selection of the appellants. Hence there is no arbitrary C 
exercise of power or any other factor which goes to the root of the selection. 
[789-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12133-35 
of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.94 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4635, 4708 & 5192 of 1994. 
P.P. Rao, Raj Kr. Gupta, H.P. Sharm and Rajesh for the Appellants. 
K.C. Bajaj and D.B. Vohra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
D 
E 
This appeal by special leave arises from the common order passed F 
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 selcection 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. G 
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 consel 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 H 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 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 establish that some attempts were made to see that they are failed. 
There is no tempering with remarks or the marks secured by the 
B 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 othe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.