Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an appeal by special leave against a common order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 30 May 1994 in CWO No. 4635/95 and batch. The appellants, six constables, challenged the selection process for constables in the State of Haryana, alleging that the selection was not fair and was vitiated by ministerial interference. They contended that overwritings in the select list indicated attempts to fail certain candidates, that the selection was not objective because about 20 selected candidates had worked with VIPs as gunmen, and that one selected candidate was a relative of a selecting officer. They sought a fresh selection test by an independent body of officers for themselves. The Supreme Court summoned the original records and perused the select list. It found that three officers had participated in selecting candidates and all had signed at the bottom of each page. It noted that against the first appellant, Davinder Singh, initially 10 marks were given and two more were added making it 12, with a remark that he had failed in the parade. However, there was no overwriting against the marks or entries of other candidates, and no tampering with remarks or marks secured by the appellants. The court considered whether the selection process was vitiated by mala fides or arbitrary exercise of power. It held that the selection process consisted of a written test and parade, with marks and relevant entries recorded in respective columns. The fact that one candidate selected was a relative of a selecting officer might be bad individually, but it did not vitiate the entire selection of 40 candidates. The court also held that it could not assume that the selection was vitiated by malice or error of law merely because some selected candidates had worked with VIPs as gunmen. Regarding the request for a fresh independent test for the appellants alone, the respondents' counsel argued that such a test could not be conducted exclusively for the applicants, and that a direction should not be given unless the selection process was vitiated by mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power or any other factor going to the root of selection. The court agreed, finding no such factor established from the record. It concluded that the selection was done objectively and that no interference was warranted. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Selection of Constables - Judicial Review of Selection Process - No specific statutory provision cited - The Supreme Court examined the original selection records after allegations of ministerial interference and overwritings in the select list. It found three officers signed each page and that the first appellant's marks were increased from 10 to 12 with remark 'failed in parade', but no tampering with remarks or marks of other candidates. Held that the selection process, comprising written test and parade, was not vitiated by mala fides or arbitrary exercise of power. (No paragraph numbers assigned in the judgment) B) Administrative Law - Selection Bias - Relative of Selecting Officer - No specific statutory provision cited - Even though one selected candidate was allegedly a relative of a selecting officer and his selection might be bad individually, the court found the overall selection of 40 candidates was objective. Held that the presence of such a relative did not demonstrate hostility or bias against the appellants, and did not warrant quashing the entire selection. (No paragraph numbers assigned in the judgment) C) Service Law - Scope of Judicial Interference - Special Test for Appellants - No specific statutory provision cited - The court declined to direct a fresh independent test exclusively for the six appellants solely because about 20 selected candidates had worked with VIPs as gunmen. It held that selection cannot be interfered with unless vitiated by mala fides, arbitrary exercise of power, or error of law going to the root of selection; no such ground was established. (No paragraph numbers assigned in the judgment)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection of constables was vitiated by ministerial interference, overwritings in the select list, and lack of objectivity due to selected candidates having worked with VIPs as gunmen; whether a fresh independent selection test should be directed exclusively for the appellants
Final Decision
The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs. The Supreme Court found no mala fides or arbitrary exercise of power in the selection process and declined to direct a fresh test for the appellants.
Law Points
- Selection process can be interfered with only if vitiated by mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power
- mere overwritings in select list without tampering with marks or remarks do not invalidate selection
- selection of relative of a selecting officer may be individually bad but does not vitiate entire selection
- no assumption of bias merely because selected candidates worked as VIPs' gunmen
- special test for unsuccessful candidates alone cannot be directed absent root illegality
