GANGAL RAM versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 07-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GANGALRAM 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 7, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
SeNice Law: 
AppointmenHrocess of selectiotr-Examination for post of Road 
C Inspector conducted-2 candidates declared selected Later, 14 persons ap-
poillted on vacancies stated to have arisen in promotion quota-No record 
furnished before Coult as to how 14 persons were appointed-Held, adverse 
inference would be drawn against appointing authorities for non production 
of record-Since appointees not made paTties in appeal, their appointments 
become final-No relief could be granted to appellant, as he was neither 
D selected in the examination nor kept in waiting list. 
In December 1992 the respondent-State Government conducted an 
examination for the posts of Road Inspectors. On 1.1.1993 the result was 
declared and two candidates were selected. However, in !:ii, 1993, 14 more 
E candidates were appointed by promotion as Road Inspector. The appellant 
one of the candidates having appeared in the examination, filed a writ 
petition before the High Court claiming his right to l;e considered for 
selection as Road Inspector. It was alleged that the latter 14 persons were 
appointed by taking bribe and without any selection process. The High 
Court dismissed the writ petition. 
F 
In the appeal filed by the appellant, the respondents nted counter 
affidavits before this Court stating that 14 persons were appointed as a 
result of vacancies subsequently arising in promotion quota. The Court 
granted time to respondents to furnish details of the vacancies, and the 
G process followed in appointment of 14 persons, but no Tecord was 
produced 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In view of the fact that the record bas not been produced, 
H an adverse inference is drawn against the respondents for non-production 
310 
GANGALRAM v. STATE 
311 
of the record and it would be assumed that had the record been produced A 
the same would have proved unfavourable to them and their actions are 
brittled with illegalities and to cover up the same no record bas been 
produced. [312·G·H) 
2.1. Examination having been conducted in December 1992 and the 
result declared and two selected candidates having b~en appointed on B 
Jannary 1, 1993, the result of the examination stands concluded. No fresh 
examination was conducted giving opportunity to all the candidates to 
offer their candidatnre for consideration, but 14 candidates were selected. 
It would be obvious that promotions of those 14 persons came to be made 
after demand and acceptance of illegal gratifications in that behalf by the C 
persons involved in the appointments. Otherwise, nothing prevented the 
respondents from producing the record before the Court to justify the 
correctness and legality of the action taken by them. However, the appoint· 
ments of the 14 persons have become final, since they are not impleaded 
as party-respondent to this appeal. [312-H; 313-A; C; B] 
2.2. However, no reli.C.can be given to the appellant as he was neither 
selected nor was kept in the waiting lisL [313-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11856 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.94 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 10306 of 1993. 
D .K. Garg for the Appellant. 
Ms. Nisha Bagchi for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
D 
E 
F 
The appellant specifically raised a plea that on January 1, 1993 result G 
of the examination conducted in December 1992 was declared and two 
candidates were duly declared to have been selected and appointed. Ap-
pellant 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 H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
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, he filed a 
counter-affidavit contending that subsequently 14 vacancies had arisen in 
the promotion quota and, therefore, they were duly declared to have been 
B 
selected and appointed. With a view to satisfy ourselves about the correct-
ness and legality of the action taken by the respondents, on September 11, 
1995 we passed the following order : 
c 
D

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