Holding

The respondents were not justified in refusing the appellant's appointment, but the appeal was dismissed due to the elapsed time and the appellant's age.

Summary

The appellant was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for the post of Senior Public Prosecutor, CBI, and was medically declared fit, but no appointment order was issued while other candidates were appointed. After unsuccessful representations to the Director, CBI and the Government of India, he filed a mandamus application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his claim on the basis of sealed documents alleging his unsuitability and a claim of privilege. The Supreme Court examined the material and held that the respondents had not applied their mind and that the conclusion of unsuitability was based on mere conjecture from a single 1983 incident. Consequently, the Court found the denial of appointment unjustified. However, considering the lapse of time, the appellant's age (over 50) and his long legal practice, the Court chose not to order his appointment. The appeal was therefore dismissed, but the respondents were directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant. The judgment underscores the need for a reasoned decision when denying a candidate selected by the UPSC.

Issues considered

Whether the respondents were justified in refusing to appoint the appellant despite his selection by the UPSC.
Whether the sealed documents and claim of privilege can be disregarded by the Tribunal in deciding the appointment.
Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
Whether the Supreme Court should direct appointment after a considerable time lapse and the appellant's advanced age.

Subjects

appointmentUPSC selectionSenior Public ProsecutorCentral Bureau of Investigationmandamusprivilegesealed documentsadministrative lawunfair denialappointment delaycosts

Judgment

JAGTAR SINGH

v.

DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND
ORS.

APRIL 13, 1993 n
fKULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.J.)

Sen:ice Law: Appoi111n1em-Verification ofa111ecede11ts and cllar-
acter-Fou nd u11desirable-De11ial of appoi111me11t to selected
candidate-Conclusion based 011 a single i11cide111-Wlietlrerjus1ified. c

The appellant was selected by the Union Public Sen ice Commis-
sion for appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor, Central
Uureau of lm·estigation. He was medically examined and found fit.
Though the other candidates selected along with the appellant were
appointed, no appointment order in respect of the appellant was D
issued. After waiting for some time he submitted a representation to
Respondent No. J and another representation to the Go\'ernment of
India. Since there was no response from either of the authorities, he
filed an application before the Central Administrath·e 1'ribunal.
Bt!forethe Tribunal, the respondents contended that it was found that E
the appellant was not a suitable person for appointment to the post of
Senior Public Prosecutor and filed documents containing reasons
• therefor in sealed cover. Prh·ilege was also claimed. The Tribunal did
not open the sealed co\'er and relying upon the averments made in the
atlida\'it, dismissed the application of the appellant. The present
appeal is against the judgment of the Tribunal. F

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: J .I. The appellant has been unjustifiably denied his right
to be appointed to the post to which he was selected and recommended
hy the Union Public Sen·ice Commission. No reasonable person, on G
_, the basis of the material on record can come to the conclusion that the
appellant's antecedents and character are such that he is unfit to be
appointed to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. There has been
total lack of application of mind on the part of the respondents. Only
on the basis of surmises and conjectures arising out of a single incident
H
77
78 Sl'PREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.

A which happened in the ~·ear 1983 it has been concluded that the
appellant is not a desirable person to be appointed to Government
service (80-C-D).
-
--- t-

1.2. Ordinaril~· this court would have directed the respondents to
appoint the appellant, but keeping in ,·iew the time lapse and the
n appellant has al read~· entered SOth )·ear of his age and has put in about
23 ~·ears of practice" as an adrncate, it would not be in the interest of
justice to issue a direction to that effect (80-F).

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1732
C of 1993. ·

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.1987 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal in Registration 0.A. No. 123/86.

n V.C. Mahajan, Gaurav Jain and M~. Abha Jain for the Appellant.

N.N. Goswami, Tara Chand Sharma and C. V. Subba Rao for the
Respondents.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by
E

KULDIP SINGH J. Special leave granted.
The appellant was selected by the Union Public Service Conunis-
sion for appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. Central
F Rureau of Investigation. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
India. By a letter dated July 16. 1984 he, along with two other
candidates, was recommended for appointment to the said post. An
intimation to this effect was also received by the appellant. He was
medically examined on August 29, 1984 and was found fit. Other
candidates selected along with the appellant were appointed but no
G appointment order in respect of the appellant was issued. After waiting J
J
foi: some time he submitted a representation to the Director, Central
Bureau of Investigation on February 8, 1985 and another representa-
tion to the Government oflndia on May 13, 1985. No reply having been
received from either of the authorities, he filed an application before
H
JAGTAR SINGH.'" DIRECTOR C.B.I. [SINGH J.J 79

the Central Administrative Trib·unal, Allahabad on February 25, 1986 A
seeking mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him to the post
of Senior Public Prosecutor. The respondents in their counter before
the Tribunal stated that after the receipt of recommendation from the
Union Public Service Commission other formalities were gone into
and it was found that the appellant was not a suitable person for

-- appointment to the post of Senior Pµblic Prosecutor. The respondents B
filed the documents containing reasons for the unsuitability of the
appellant, in sealed cover, before the Tribunal. An affidavit claiming
privilege was also filed. The Tribunal did not open the sealed cover and
relying upon the averments in the counter filed by the respondents
dismissed the application of the appellant. This appeal by way of c
· special leave is against the judgment of the Tribunal.

Before us an affidavit has been filed by Mr. Dandapani, Secretary
' to the Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel , Public
Grievances and Pensions. Department of Personnel and Training, D
claiming privilege in respect of the documents which contain reasons
to show that the appellant is not a suitable person for appointment to
the post of Senior Public Prosecut(Jr. The documents are in a sealed
cover. In para 4 of the affidavit it is stated as under:

"However, I have no objection to the aforesaid records E
being produced for perusal by the Hon'ble Court for
• satisfying itself about the bona/ides and genuineness
of the privilege."

Mr. D.P. Gupta, learned Solicitor General has filed copies of the F
documents for our consideration. It is not disputed th~ the District
Magistrate. Nainital by his letter dated September 20, 1984 reported
that there was no adverse entry against the appclla~t in the records of
the Chowki Kathgodam which might affect his appointment as a
Government servant. The District Magistrate's letter was based on the
verification done by i111.:harge Chowki Kathgodam. Police Station G
Haldwani, Senior Sub-Inspector Local Intelligence Unit Nainital and
finally by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital who appended
the endorsement "character verified and found correct". Not satisfied
with the initial verification in favour of the appeJJant further imresti-
gaiions were made regarding his character and antecedents and it was H
80 SUPREME COL:RT REPORTS (199313 S.C.R.

A finally concluded that the appellant was not a suitable person to be
appointed to the Government service. It is not necessary for us to go
into the question as 10 whether the claim of privilege by the respondents
is justified or nc.>I. W..: also do not wish to go into the de1ails of the
investigations made regarding the antecedents and character of the
appellant. We haw cardully examined the material on the basis of
8
which the respondents have come to the conclusion that the appellant
is not suitable for appoinlmcnt to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor
in the Central Bureau of Inn!stigation and we arc of the view that the
respondents are not jus1ified in reaching a conclusion adverse 10 the
appellant. No reasonable person, on the basis of the ma1erial placed
C before us, can come to the conclusion that the appellant's antecedents
and character are such that he is unfit to he appointed to. the posl of
Senior Public Prosecutor. There has been total lack of application of
mind on the part of the responden1s. Only on lhl."! has is of sunnises and
conjectures arising out of a single i111.:idcn1 which happened in the year
1983 it has been concluded !hat the appellant is not a desirable person .
D
to be appointed rn the Gon:rnmcnt service. We are of the view that the
appellant has heen unjustifiably denied his right to he appointed tc> the
post to \yhich he was selected and recommended by the Union Public:
Service Commission.

E Having found that the respondents were not justified in refusing
to appoint the appellant, ordinarily, we would have directed the
respondents to appoint the appdlant, hut keeping in view the time lapse
and further that the appellant has already entered 50th year of his age
and has put in ah.out 23 years of practice as an advocate, we are of the
F view that it would not he in the interest of justice to issue a direction
to that effect. We, therefore. dismiss the appeal but under the circum-
stances we direct that the respondents shall pay the costs of the
litigation to the appellant which we quantify as Rs. IO, 000.

Q.N. Appeal dismissed.