Supreme Court of India
GANGAL RAMversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 855
- Decided
- 7 December 1995
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
Non-production of the appointment records by the State justifies an adverse inference of illegality, but since the appellant was neither selected nor on a waiting list, no relief is granted and the promotions of the fourteen candidates stand final.
Summary
In December 1992 the State of Haryana conducted an examination for Road Inspectors, declaring two candidates selected on 1 January 1993. Subsequently, on 16 July 1993, fourteen additional candidates were appointed by promotion, allegedly without any selection process and possibly involving bribes. The appellant, who had appeared in the original examination, filed a writ petition seeking consideration, which the High Court dismissed. On appeal, the respondents failed to produce any records justifying the promotion appointments, prompting the Supreme Court to draw an adverse inference of illegality against them. However, the Court held that the appellant was neither selected nor placed on a waiting list, and therefore could not be granted relief, while the appointments of the fourteen candidates, not being parties to the appeal, remained final. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the State's failure to produce records justifying the promotion appointments warrants an adverse inference of illegality.
- Whether the appointments of the fourteen candidates made without a fresh selection process can be set aside.
- Whether the appellant, not being selected or on a waiting list, is entitled to any relief.
- Whether the appointments become final when the appointees are not impleaded as parties.
Subjects
appointmentpromotion quotaselection processadverse inferencewrit petitionillegal gratificationroad inspectorexaminationnon-production of record
Judgment
A GANGALRAM
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
DECEMBER 7, 1995
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
SeNice Law:
AppointmenHrocess of selectiotr-Examination for post of Road
C Inspector conducted-2 candidates declared selected Later, 14 persons ap-
poillted on vacancies stated to have arisen in promotion quota-No record
furnished before Coult as to how 14 persons were appointed-Held, adverse
inference would be drawn against appointing authorities for non production
of record-Since appointees not made paTties in appeal, their appointments
become final-No relief could be granted to appellant, as he was neither
D selected in the examination nor kept in waiting list.
In December 1992 the respondent-State Government conducted an
examination for the posts of Road Inspectors. On 1.1.1993 the result was
declared and two candidates were selected. However, in !:ii, 1993, 14 more
E candidates were appointed by promotion as Road Inspector. The appellant
one of the candidates having appeared in the examination, filed a writ
petition before the High Court claiming his right to l;e considered for
selection as Road Inspector. It was alleged that the latter 14 persons were
appointed by taking bribe and without any selection process. The High
Court dismissed the writ petition.
F
In the appeal filed by the appellant, the respondents nted counter
affidavits before this Court stating that 14 persons were appointed as a
result of vacancies subsequently arising in promotion quota. The Court
granted time to respondents to furnish details of the vacancies, and the
G process followed in appointment of 14 persons, but no Tecord was
produced
Disposing of the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. In view of the fact that the record bas not been produced,
H an adverse inference is drawn against the respondents for non-production
310
GANGALRAM v. STATE 311
of the record and it would be assumed that had the record been produced A
the same would have proved unfavourable to them and their actions are
brittled with illegalities and to cover up the same no record bas been
produced. [312·G·H)
2.1. Examination having been conducted in December 1992 and the
result declared and two selected candidates having b~en appointed on B
Jannary 1, 1993, the result of the examination stands concluded. No fresh
examination was conducted giving opportunity to all the candidates to
offer their candidatnre for consideration, but 14 candidates were selected.
It would be obvious that promotions of those 14 persons came to be made
after demand and acceptance of illegal gratifications in that behalf by the C
persons involved in the appointments. Otherwise, nothing prevented the
respondents from producing the record before the Court to justify the
correctness and legality of the action taken by them. However, the appoint·
ments of the 14 persons have become final, since they are not impleaded
as party-respondent to this appeal. [312-H; 313-A; C; B]
D
2.2. However, no reli.C.can be given to the appellant as he was neither
selected nor was kept in the waiting lisL [313-D)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11856 of
1995.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.94 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 10306 of 1993.
D .K. Garg for the Appellant.
Ms. Nisha Bagchi for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents.
F
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
The appellant specifically raised a plea that on January 1, 1993 result G
of the examination conducted in December 1992 was declared and two
candidates were duly declared to have been selected and appointed. Ap-
pellant is one of the candidates who claimed their right for consideration
for selection as Road Inspector in the said examination. It is now an
admitted fact that on July 16, 1993, 14 more candidates came to be H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A appointed by promotion as Road Inspectors. When the appellant claimed
relief by filing Writ Petition No. 10306/93, the High Court dismissed the
Writ Petition on February 10, 1994. After the notice was served, he filed a
counter-affidavit contending that subsequently 14 vacancies had arisen in
the promotion quota and, therefore, they were duly declared to have been
B selected and appointed. With a view to satisfy ourselves about the correct-
ness and legality of the action taken by the respondents, on September 11,
1995 we passed the following order :
"Though in the counter-affidavit it is stated that the results of the
rest of the candidates were announced on July 16, 1993 for the
c reason that subsequent to the appointment of the two candidates
on January 1, 1993 some vacancies reserved for promotion quota
from Mastrys had arisen, no documentary evidence in support of
the averment has been placed by the respondents. Learned counsel
seeks for an is granted four weeks' time for producing the record
to justify whether the vacancies had arisen and if so, how many
D and on what basis the appointments by promotion came to be
made."
No record has been produced. Ms. Nisha, learned counsel appearing
for the State sought further opportunity to produce the file but we decline
E to grant further time since no explanation has been given as to under what
circumstances the record has not been produced even till date. Under
these circumstances, we are left with no option but to proceed with the
matter on the basis of the material on record.
p Shri D .K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, con-
tended that the appellant apprehends that the action was taken by the
respondents only after committing illegal act of taking bribe and 14 can-
didates were appointed without any selection. We fine force in the conten-
tion. In view of the fact that the record has not been produced, we have
to draw adve~se inference against the respondents for non-production of
G the record and proceed on the footing that had the record been produced
the same would have proved unfavourable to them and their actions are
brittled with illegalities and to cover up the same no record has been
produced. Obviously, examination having been conducted in December
1992 and the result declared and two selected candidates having been
H appointed on January 1, 1993 the result of the examination stands con-
GANGALRAM.v. STATE 313
eluded. It is not the case, however, that any fresh examination was con- A
ducted giving opportunity to all the candidates to offer candidature for
consideration and that 14 candidates were selected, who were respondents
in other writ petition disposed of by the High Court, though not impleaded
in this case. We do not propose to set aside their selection as their
appointments have become final since they are not impleaded as party-
B
respondents to this appeal. However, things are not appearing to be
innocuous as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the Chief Engineer. It
would be obvious that those promotions to 14 persons came to be made
after demand and acceptance of illegal gratifications in that behalf by the
concerned persons involved in the appointments. Otherwise, nothing
prevented the respondents from producing the record before the Court to C
justify the correctness and legality of ·the action taken by them. In these
circumstances, we are constrained to make these observations. However,
no relief can be given to the appellant as he was neither selected nor was
kept in the waiting list.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. D
R.P. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "appointment"Sign in to search