CONSTABLE DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

A               CONSTABLE DAVINDER SINGH AND ORS.
                                v.
                    STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                              DECEMBER 15, 1995

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.J

          Se1vice Law-Selection of Constables-Selection process-Written test
    and parade-Reasons disclosed by the Selection Committee in respect of
    failed candidates-Selection was done objectively-No arbitrary exercise of
C   power and hence no need for fresh selection test.

           Appellants were among the 40 candidates who were called for the
    selection of constables. Selection committee was constituted of three of-
    ficers. Out of 40 candidates 20 were selected after a selection process which
    consisted of written test and parade.
D
          The failed candidates approached the High Court and one of them
    was found to be not treated properly and the High Court ordered for the
    fresh test and that candidate was selected. Other candidates approached
    this court with an appeal.

E          On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that selection of con-
    stable was not fair and was vitiated by ministerial interference. And also,
    that selected candidates happened to have worked with some of the VIPs as
    gunmen etc. Therefore selection does not appear to be objective. It was
    further contended that over-writings against the names of some appellants
F   in the select list establish that some attempts were made to see that they
    are failed. Appellants sought a direction that a fresh opportunity should be
    given to them by conducting the test afresh by an independent body of
    ollicers.

          Dismissing the appeal, this Court
G
         HELD : 1.1. Selection was done objectively and was not vitiated on
    account of the fact that some of the selected candidates appeared to have
    worked with some VIPs, as gunmen. [788-G]

        1.2. The selection process consisted of both written test and parade.
H   Marks were given to each candidate and relevant entries were made against
                                         786
                            DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE                              787

•   each in the respective columns. In the remarks column entry was made                A
    against each candidate who had failed, disclosing reason for failure.
                                                                       [788-E]
          1.3. There is no tampering with the remarks or the marks secured by
    the appellants. As against the first appellant, in the remarks column, it was
    stated that he had failed in the parade. Thus there is no over-writing              B
    against the marks or entries made in the respective columns against the
    candidates. [788-B]

          2. Nothing worthwhile could be found from the record to hold that
    the selection is vitiated by malafides or is beset with illegality to give direc-
    tion to make fresh selection of the appellants. Hence there is no arbitrary         C
    exercise of power or any other factor which goes to the root of the selection.
                                                                             [789-A]
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12133-35
    of 1995.
                                                                                        D
         From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.94 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4635, 4708 & 5192 of 1994.

          P.P. Rao, Raj Kr. Gupta, H.P. Sharm and Rajesh for the Appellants.

          K.C. Bajaj and D.B. Vohra for the Respondents.                                E
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.

          This appeal by special leave arises from the common order passed              F
    by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on 30th may, 1994 in CWO No.
    4635/95 and batch.

          In view of the allegations made in the appeal that selcection of
    Constable was not fair and was vitiated by ministerial interference, we had
    summoned the original record and we have carefully perused the select list.         G
    Three officers had participated in selecting the candidates and all of them
    had signed at the bottom of each page of the select list.

          Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior consel for the appellants, contended
    that though one candidate initially had failed, when the High Court had
    summoned the records and noted on perusal thereof that he was not H
    788                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A properly treated, it had directed the Government to conduct the test afresh
    and he was, thereafter, selected. It is next contended that there was
    over-writings against the names of some appellants in the select list which
    would establish that some attempts were made to see that they are failed.

          There is no tempering with remarks or the marks secured by the
B   appellants, as appears from the perusal of records. As against the first
    appellant, Davinder Singh, initially 10 marks were given and two more
    marks were added making it 12. In the remarks column, it was stated that
    he had failed in the parade. As regards marks secured by other candidates,
    there is no over- writing against the marks or entires made in the respective
    columns.
c
        Shri Rao then contended that before this Court the appellants are
  only six and if fresh opportunity is given to them for selection by an
  independent body of officers, they would stand fair chances for success in
  the test and if they are selected, it would be well and good and if they
D would fail, it would be the end of the dispute. In that behalf, he also stated
  that though selection was made after calling 40 candidates, out of which
  about 20 selected candidates happened to have worked with some of the
  VIPs as gunmen etc., the selection does not appear to be objective.

        We are unable to accede to the contention. The selection process
E consisted of written test and parade. Marks were given to ~a"h candidate
  and relevant entires were made against each in the respective columns. In
  the remarks column entry was made against each candidate who had failed
  disclosing the reason for failure. We do not find that the officers in the
  selection committee were actuated by hostility against the appellants.
  Though one candidate is said to be a relative of one of the selecting
F officers, he got selected and the same may be bad, but we find that
  selection was done objective to select 40 candidates. We do not think that
  selection was vitiated on account of the fact that some of the selected
  candidates appeared to have worked with some VIPs as gunmen. We
  cannot assume that on that account other selection was vitiated by any
G malice or error of law.
           Futher contention raised was that since the scheme has been
    scrapped, liberty may be given for conducting a fresh test by independent
    body. Mr. K.C. Bajaj, learned counsel for the respondents, stated that
    selection lest cannot exclusively be conducted for the applicants. It may
H   not be proper to give any direction to conduct any special test for the
                            DAVINDER SINGH v. STATE                           789
..   appellants alone unless we are satisfied that the selection process is vitiated A
     by mala fide of arbitrary exercise of power or any other factor which goes
     to the root of the selection. Except that one of the officer's relative was
     stated to be a member of the selection committee , nothing worthwhile
     could be found from the record to hold that the selection is vitiated by
     mala ftdes or is beset with illegality to give direction to make fresh selection B
     of the appellants.

            We do not think that it is a case warranting interference and to give
     directions sought for. The appeals are according dismissed. No costs.

     M.K.                                                     Appeals dismissed.




-