Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the denial of appointment to the appellant, who was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for the position of Senior Public Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigation. After being medically examined and found fit, the appellant awaited an appointment order, which was never issued. Following this, he submitted representations to the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Government of India, but received no response. Consequently, he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a mandamus for his appointment. The respondents contended that the appellant was unsuitable for the position based on documents submitted in a sealed cover, which the Tribunal did not open, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's application. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, found that the denial of appointment was unjustified as it was based on a single incident from 1983 without reasonable justification. The court noted a lack of application of mind by the respondents and concluded that the appellant's antecedents did not render him unfit for the position. However, considering the time elapsed and the appellant's age, the court refrained from directing his appointment but awarded him costs for the litigation. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Justification of Denial - Service Law - The appellant was unjustifiably denied appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor despite being selected by the Union Public Service Commission, based on a single incident from 1983. The court found a total lack of application of mind by the respondents and concluded that no reasonable person could deem the appellant unfit for the position (Paras 80-C-D). B) Service Law - Right to Appointment - Denial of Right - Service Law - The court held that the appellant's right to appointment was unjustifiably denied, but due to the time lapse and the appellant's age, it would not be in the interest of justice to direct his appointment. The court dismissed the appeal but awarded costs to the appellant (Paras 80-F).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the denial of appointment to the appellant based on a single incident was justified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal but directed the respondents to pay the appellant costs quantified at Rs. 10,000.
Law Points
- Service Law
- Appointment
- Verification of antecedents
- Character assessment
- Right to appointment
