Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a service dispute concerning selection to the post of Road Inspector. The appellant had participated in an examination conducted in December 1992. The result was declared on January 1, 1993, and two candidates were selected and appointed. The appellant claimed a right to be considered for selection but was not selected. Subsequently, on July 16, 1993, fourteen more candidates were appointed by promotion as Road Inspectors. The appellant challenged the action by filing Writ Petition No. 10306 of 1993 in the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition on February 10, 1994. He then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellant specifically pleaded that the examination result was declared on January 1, 1993, and two candidates were appointed. He was one of the candidates claiming consideration. It was admitted that on July 16, 1993, 14 more candidates were appointed by promotion. In response to notice, the State filed a counter-affidavit contending that 14 vacancies had arisen in the promotion quota, justifying the appointments. The Supreme Court by order dated September 11, 1995, granted four weeks to produce the record to verify the vacancies and the basis of promotion appointments. No record was produced. The State sought further time, which was declined as no explanation was given. The legal issues were whether the appointments of 14 candidates by promotion were legal and justified; whether adverse inference should be drawn due to non-production of records; and whether the appellant was entitled to any relief. The appellant argued that the action was taken after committing illegal acts of taking bribe and that the 14 candidates were appointed without any selection. The State contended that vacancies had arisen in the promotion quota and that candidates were duly selected and appointed. The Court noted that no documentary evidence had been placed to support the claim of vacancies in the promotion quota. Despite the order granting time, no record was produced. The Court declined further time. It observed that non-production of the record warranted an adverse inference and proceeded on the footing that, had the record been produced, it would have proved unfavourable to the respondents and their actions were vitiated by illegalities. The Court observed that the examination conducted in December 1992 had concluded with the appointment of two candidates on January 1, 1993. It was not the case that any fresh examination was conducted giving opportunity to all candidates. The 14 candidates were respondents in another writ petition disposed of by the High Court and were not impleaded in this appeal. Therefore, the Court did not set aside their selections as their appointments had become final. The Court further observed that promotions to 14 persons appeared to have been made after demand and acceptance of illegal gratification because the respondents did not produce the record. However, the Court held that no relief could be given to the appellant because he was neither selected nor kept in the waiting list. The appeal was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Adverse Inference for Non-Production of Records - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court noted that despite order granting four weeks, respondents failed to produce record to justify vacancies in promotion quota - Court drew adverse inference against respondents and proceeded on footing that record would have been unfavorable to them and their actions were vitiated by illegalities - Held that non-production of record warrants adverse inference (Para 1). B) Service Law - Promotion - Validity of Appointments Without Fresh Selection - Not mentioned - Examination conducted in December 1992, result declared and two candidates appointed on January 1, 1993; result concluded - No fresh examination was conducted to offer opportunity to all candidates; 14 candidates appointed by promotion were not selected through fresh process - Held that promotions were suspect but not set aside as selected candidates not impleaded as parties (Para 1). C) Service Law - Writ Remedy - Entitlement to Relief - Not mentioned - Appellant neither selected nor kept in waiting list - Even though adverse inference drawn and observations made about illegal gratification, no relief could be granted to appellant - Held that appeal disposed of without costs and no relief (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appointments of 14 candidates as Road Inspectors by promotion were valid in absence of proof of vacancies; whether adverse inference should be drawn against the State for non-production of records; whether the appellant was entitled to any relief despite not being selected or kept in waiting list.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of without granting any relief to the appellant; no costs. Adverse inference drawn against the respondents for non-production of record; observations made that promotions appeared to be after illegal gratification; appointments of 14 candidates not set aside due to non-impleadment.
Law Points
- Adverse inference for non-production of records
- finality of selection result
- no relief if not selected or on waiting list
- promotion appointments require valid vacancy and selection process
- non-impleadment of selected candidates precludes setting aside appointments
- court may make adverse observations without granting relief
