LexJAGTAR SINGH versus DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• _, JAGTAR SINGH v. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. APRIL 13, 1993 fKULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.J.) n Sen:ice Law: Appoi111n1em-Verification of a111ecede11ts and cllar- acter-Fou nd u11desirable-De11ial of appoi111me11t to selected candidate-Conclusion based 011 a single i11cide111-Wlietlrerjus1ified. c The appellant was selected by the Union Public Sen ice Commis- sion for appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor, Central Uureau of lm·estigation. 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 D issued. After waiting for some time he submitted a representation to Respondent No. J and another representation to the Go\'ernment of India. Since there was no response from either of the authorities, he filed an application before the Central Administrath·e 1'ribunal. Bt!forethe Tribunal, the respondents contended that it was found that E the appellant was not a suitable person for appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor and filed documents containing reasons therefor in sealed cover. Prh·ilege was also claimed. The Tribunal did not open the sealed co\'er and relying upon the averments made in the atlida\'it, dismissed the application of the appellant. The present appeal is against the judgment of the Tribunal. F Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: J .I. The appellant has been unjustifiably denied his right to be appointed to the post to which he was selected and recommended hy the Union Public Sen·ice Commission. No reasonable person, on G 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 H 77 78 Sl'PREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R. A which happened in the ~·ear 1983 it has been concluded that the appellant is not a desirable person to be appointed to Government service (80-C-D). n 1.2. Ordinaril~· this court would have directed the respondents to appoint the appellant, but keeping in ,·iew the time lapse and the appellant has al read~· entered SOth )·ear of his age and has put in about 23 ~·ears of practice" as an adrncate, it would not be in the interest of justice to issue a direction to that effect (80-F). CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1732 C of 1993. · From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Registration 0.A. No. 123/86. n V.C. Mahajan, Gaurav Jain and M~. Abha Jain for the Appellant. E N.N. Goswami, Tara Chand Sharma and C. V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J. Special leave granted. The appellant was selected by the Union Public Service Conunis- sion for appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. Central F Rureau 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. An 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 G H appointment order in respect of the appellant was issued. After waiting foi: some time he submitted a representation to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation on February 8, 1985 and another representa- tion to the Government oflndia on May 13, 1985. No reply having been received from either of the authorities, he filed an application before ----t- J J -- ' • JAGTAR SINGH.'" DIRECTOR C.B.I. [SINGH J.J 79 the Central Administrative Trib·unal, Allahabad on February 25, 1986 A 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 Pµblic Prosecutor. The respondents B filed the documents containing reasons for the unsuit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.