UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH versus DILBAGH SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 03-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH . 
v. 
DILBAGH SINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 3, 1992 
[J.S. VERMA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND 
N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Civil Services : 
A 
B 
Chandigarh Transport Undertaking-Conductors-Selection for ap-
C 
pointment--Constitution of Selection Board-Select list prepared-Criticism 
of favouritism and nepotism in awarding marks at Interview-Confirmed on 
examination by Administration though corruption charges not estab-
lished-However selection unfair and injudicious-Administration ordering 
cancellation of select list and constituting new Selection Board-Validity D 
of- Non-affording of opportunity to Members of Selection Board and selected 
candidates-Effect of 
For filling up the posts of 32 vacancies of conductors in the 
Transport Undertaking under it, the appellant requested the Employment 
Exchange to sponsor names or eligible candidates and constituted a Selec-
E 
lion Board to prepare a Select List. The Selection Board interviewed 446 
candidates sponsiired by the Employment Exchange and prepared a Seleci 
List or 32 candidates on the basis or marks awardable for educational 
qualifications and performance at the interview. There was criticism that 
the select list was an amalgum of favouritism, nepotism and even corrup-
F 
tion resorted to by members or the Selection Board. Tiie appellant got the 
select list examined which revealed that the select list was not prepared by 
the members or the Selection Board fairly and judiciously, in that, the 
members had taken undue advantage of awarding marks in the interview 
to favour candidates of their choice, although there was no evidence of 
corruption. Hence the appellant decided to constitute a new Selection G 
Board to prepare fresh select list on the basis of only 15 per cent marks 
awardable to candidates in interview as against 30% marks fixed earlier 
lest the power of the Selection Board to award interview marks may be 
utilised either to pull up unmerited candidates or pull down merited 
candidates. Accordingly, the appellant cancelled the select list of can-
H 
311 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
didates and constituted a new Selection Board to prepare a fresh select 
list from out of candidates including those who had been interviewed by 
the earlier Selection Board and the criteria to be followed was that 85% 
marks would be awardable for educational qualifications and 15o/o marks 
for performance in interview. 
B 
When the newly ·constituted Selection Board was about to inten·iew 
the candidates, the respondents whose names found place in the cancelled 
select list approached the Central Adm:nistrative Tribunal seeking the 
setting aside of the order cancelling the select list and constituting a new 
Board. The Tribunal, on the ground of non-affording of opportunity to the 
C ·members of the Selection Board before cancelli!1g the select list, set aside 
the order issued by the appellant and directed the appellant to appoint in 
the available vacancies the candidates from the cancelled select list in 
D 
preference to candidates from the select list prepared by the newly con-
stituted Selection Board. 
Being aggrieved by the Tribunal's order the appellant preferred the 
present appeal by special leave. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that affording of an 
opportunity to the members of the Selection Board before cancelling the 
E 
select list being neither a requirement of law nor a requirement of any of 
the principles of natural justice, it could not have been made the sole 
ground for setting aside the order issued by the appellant. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the select list of 
candidates prepared by the earlier Selection Board has been cancelled by 
F 
the appellant though there was no proof of corruption charges against the 
members of the Selection Board; and that an opportunity of hearing ought 
to have been given to the candidates in the select list before it was 
cancelled. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD : I. The order made by the appellant-Administration cancell-
ing the select list cannot but be regarded as the right and just one. Such 
an order cannot be vitiated on the ground that it had been made without 
affording an opportunity of hearing to the members of the Selection Board 
H who had prepared it. Further, such an order cannot be vitiated either 
UNION TE!1.RITORY v. DlLBAGH SINGH 
313 
because no direct evidence was made available to prove corru

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