PRITPAL SINGH ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

A                         PRITPAL SINGH ETC. ETC.
                                          v.
                       STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                                   JULY 27, 1994

B
         [S. MOHAN, JEEVAN REDDY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]
           ,j

          Service Law-Appobu111e11ts-Me111bers of police force-Must be
    selected objectively a11d fairly-Se/ectio11 of Assista11t-Sub- Inspector of
C   Police made by Harya11a Subordi11ate Service Selection Board-Not objective
    and fair-It is in public interest that selections and appointments made con-
    sequent thereon be quashed-Appropriate directions made-Board directed to
    preserve answer papers a11d tabulati011 of marks for three months after decla-
    ration of results.

D         The Haryana Subordinate Service Selection Board Issued an adver-
    tisement inviting applications for the appointment of Assistant Sub-In-
    spectors of Police in the State of Haryana. Intending candidates were
    informed that they would have to appear lo two written examinations of
    100 marks each and, If they obtained 50% or more marks. They would be
    called for a physical test and an interview. Successful candidates would
E   have to qualify in three out of four physical tests. A total of 3963 candidates
    were called to appear fmr the written examinations held on 19-2-1989. The
    results of the examinations were declared on 11-8-1989•. 206 candidates
    qualified and were called for interview. On 27-10-1989, before the result of
    the selection had been declared, the Board resolved to destroy the answer
F   books of the written examinations as there was no space to keep them lo
    the Board's office. The final results of the examinations were declared on
    6-4-1990. Thirty nine candidates were recommended for appointment to
    the State Government.

G        Several u,nsuccessful candidates challenged the selection by filing
  writ petitions and alleged that members of the Board had given more
  marks at the interview to favorite candidates. The writ petitions were
  dismissed. The High Court having seen the mark sheets produced by the
  respondents duly signed by members of the Board, held that the submis-
  sion of the writ petitioners was not well founded. These appeals had been
H filed againsl the Judgment of the High Court.
                                         326
                      PRITPAL SINGH 1·. STATE OF HARYANA                        327

           There being very serious allegations against the constitution, procea       A
..    dure and functioning of the Board, ail i:-espondents, including those "·ho
      had been selected and appointed, were ordered to be duly notified. The
      appellants submitted that an inquiry by the C.B.I., should be ordered and
      the report thereof awaited for there might be other documents which the
      Board had not produced; that the marks sheet produced by the Board
      before the court could not have been the marks sheet produced by it before
                                                                                       B
      the High Court; that the members of the Board as presently constituted had
      been appointed by politicians inimical to the politicians who had appointed
      the Board as it was constituted at the relevant time and that the former
      were interested in maligning the latter so that the documents they produced
      could not be relied upon.                                                        c
            Allowing the appeals, this Court

             HELD : 1.1. It is in the public interest that members of the police
      force should be selected objectively and fairly. In the instant case the
      selection of Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police made by the Haryana Sub- D
      ordinate Services Selection Board was not objective and fair and must
      quashed along with the appointments made by the State Government con-
      sequent thereto. (335-H, 336-A)

             1.2. The answer papers of the written examinations were destroyed         E
       even before the result of the selection had been declared. The resolution
       passed by the Board stated that the Board had decided to destroy the
       answer papers as there was no space to keep them in the Board's office. In
     · reply it was admitted that there was no such shortage of space. So great
       was the haste to destroy the answer papers that the destruction was already
       complete when the resolution was passed. The shortage of space could not        F
       have been so acutely felt so suddenly and the explanation contained in the
       resolution did not explain or justify the tearing hurry. The explanation was,
       therefore, suspect. [332-G-H, 333-A]

            1.3. Ordinarily, the examiners would have themselves tabulated the G
      marks given by them against the serial numbers or names of the candidates
      whose answer papers they had examined. No such tabulation had been
      produced by the Board. There were four written papers. The Board would
      have had to tabulate the marks obtained by each candidate in each of the
      four papers and aggregate the same for the purpose of ascertaining which
      of the candidates had obtained the qualifying marks or more. No H
    328                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A suchlabulation had been produced. There were 13 exa111iners. Ordinarily,
    there would be a moderatio11 of the marks given by two or more examiners
    In the same subject so as to ensure that one had not been too strict and the
                                                                                     •
    other too lenient. Much paper pertaining to the physical statistics of the
    candidates declared to be successful at the written examination had been
    preserved by the Board. Very large sheets of papers with the names of the
B   candidates and their qualifications, etc., typed thereon were placed before
    the members of the Board who interviewed them. Upon these sheets of
    papers there were large blanks, in that no notation had been made with
    regard to many candidates one after the other in serial order. Such nota-
    tions were only in pencil and they did not always indicate how the candidate
c   had fared. Along \\ith the'e very large sheets of papers there was a small
    strip of paper relating only to the candidate who, for some reason, was
    interviewed on 3-9-1989. That strip of paper showed the final assessment of
    the candidate at the interview. There was not corresponding tabulation of
    final marks produced in respect of the candidate who appeared on the
    earlier dates of interview. [333-C-H, 334-A]
D
          1.4. The original marks sheet duly signed by members of the Board,
    produced before the High /Court was a compilation of six sheets held
    together by a tag and signed at the foot of the concerned sheet leaving a vast
    gap, which suggested that they intended to leave room for the addition of
    names to the list. The Board recommended to the State Government there-
E
    by nine candidates on 6·4-1990, twelve candidates on 11-4· 1990, one can·
    didate on 25·4·1990, six candidates on 15·6·1990, one on 31-7-1990, two
    candidates on 17·6·1991 and one candidate on 14-11-1991. This left no
    doubt that this marks list had been, as was intended to be, manipulated by
    the addition of names thereto as and when some event took place. The strip
F   of paper showing the final marks secured by a candidate interviewed on 3-9-
    1989 stated that the candidate had secured 20 marks at the interview but
    the marks sheet produced in the High Court showed that that candidate
    had secured eighteen and a half. (334-C-H, 335-A]

          1.5. It might be that there were among those selected some who
G deserved selection and who would, consequently, suffer as a result of the
    order of quashing the selection and the appointments made consequent
    thereon, therefore, directions were made that a fresh selection shall be
    made by the board for the 98 posts of Sub-inspectors of Police; that all the
    candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement and who were
H   found eligible shall be entitled to appear for the written examinations, the
       PRITPALSINGH v.STATEOFHARYANA[BHARUCHA,J.]                         329

total marks whereof shall be 200; that having regard to the fact that the A
candidates were around the age of 30, appropriate physical requirements
be prescribed and those who were found to possess these physical require-
ments shall be called for interview, the marks whereof shall be 25. The
Board is directed to preserve the answer papers of the candidates and the
tabulations of marks made by the examiners for atleast three months after B
the declaration· of the result of the selection. The Board and the State of
Haryana were required to ensure that the selection was conducted fairly,
objectively and transparently. No member of the Board as then constituted
shall be permitted to have any thing to do with the selection now ordered.
                                                           (336-B-H, 337-E]
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5027-36                     C
of 1994.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.92, 21. 2.92, 13.3.92, 26.2.92
of the Punj2b and Haryana High Court in L.P. A Nos. 273/92, 291, 391,
'2137 to 290, 292-94 of 1992.
                                                                                  D
     V. Shekhar, R.K. Bhatt, K.K. Mohan, Ravinder Bana, Mrs. Arnita
Gupta, Prem Malhotra and Pardeep Gupta for the Appellants.

     Deepankar Gupta, Solicitor General, Salish Chandra, Govind
Mukhtey, K. Madhav Reddy, Mahesh Babu, Maninder Singh Raj Kumar                   E
Gupta, Rajesh, Rishi Kesh, Mahabir Singh and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the
Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      BHARUCHA, J. Special leave granted.
                                                                                  F
      These civil appeals are directed against the orders of various Division
Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, all of which found no
ground to interfere with the Judgment of a learned single Judge whereby
the writ petitions filed, inter alia by the present appellants, were dismissed.
In substance, therefore, it is the judgment and order of the learned single       G
judge which is under challenge.

      The Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (now called "the
Board") issued an advertisement inviting applications for the appointment
of 40 Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police in the State of Haryana. Intending
candidates were informed that they would have to appear in two written H
    330                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A examinations of 100 marks each and, if they obtained 50% or more marks
    (40% or more for Scheduled Caste and Backward Class candidates),
    would be called for a physical test and an interview. They were also
    informed that successful candidates would have to qualify in three out of
    four tests, viz., two races and an high and a long jump. The advertisement
    specified 40 Posts because at that point of time the State Government had
B   made a requisition upon the Board for 40 posts. On 1st February and 10th
    April, 1990, there were supplemental requisitions so that the total number
    of posts for which recommendations had to be made by the Board became
    98.

          A total of 3963 candidates were called to appear for the written
C examinations held on 19th February, 1989 and 2169 appeared. On 11th
    August, 1989, the results of the written examinations were declared; 537
    candidates qualified and were called for the physical test. Of these 206
    qualified and were called to be interviewed. Interviews were held between
    25th and 29th August, 1989, except for one candidate who was interviewed
D   on 3rd September. 1989.

         On 27th October, 1989, the Board resolved to destroy the answer-
    books of the written examinations. The resolution read :

            "Board observe that the large number of answer books of the
E           following posts has been lying in the office for some time past
            unwantedly and lot of space has been covered in this way.

            Sr. No.   Name of the post                 Department

            1.        Taxation Inspector               Excise & Taxation
F
            2.        AS.I.                            Police

            We are in shortage of space as we have invited applications for
            various posts recently. The space is badly needed for keeping these
           •applications.
G
            As such the board decides to destroy the answer-books of the
            above said posts as the result of the written examination in their
            cases have since been declared on 15.9.89 and 11.8.89 respectively.
            The candidates could get their answer-book rechecked by paying
H           fee of Rs. 15/- for each paper within one month from the date of
       PRITPALSINGH v.STATEOFHARYANA[BHARUCHA,J.)                      331

        declaration of result of the written examination of these posts. i.e., A
        14.10.1989 and 10.9.89, respectively. As there is no space to keep
        such a large number of answer-book of candidates for these posts
        in the office, it has become essential to dispose of/destroy them at
        once. As such the Board after taking the decision as above has
        destroyed all the answer-books of the candidates of above said B
        examination today, i.e., 27.12.1989.

              Sd/-                                       Sd/-
        Anand Singh Dangi                          Sukh Dev Singh
        Chairman 27.12.89                          Member 27.12.89
                                                                              c
             Sci/-                                      Sd/-
        Bachhan Ram                                Samey Singh Kamboj
        Member 27.12.89                            Member 27.12.89

              Sci/-                                      Sd/-
        Niroal Malik                               Devi Dayal                 D
        Member 27.12.89                            Member 27.12.89

                                                     (Emphasis supplied.)

       On 29th January, 1990, respondent No. 3-A, Anand Singh Dangi,
resigned as Chairman of the Board. He was replaced on 6th April, 1990         E
by one Bani Singh. On the same day, i.e., 6th April, 1990, the results were
declared by the Board. Thirty-nine candidates were then recommended for
appointment to the State Government. On 11th April, 1990, Twelve can-
didates were recommended. On 25th April. 1990, one candidate was
recommended. On 15th June, 1990, six candidates were recommended. On          F
31st July, 1990, one candidate was recommended. On 17th June, 1991, two
candidates were recommended. On 14th November, 1991, one candidate
was recommended.

       Several unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection as aforesaid G
by filing writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The learned
single Judge recorded in his judgment that the "had sent for the marks
sheets containing the marks for the written test as well as for the interview.
Learned counsel for the respondents had produi;ed the original marks
sheet duly signed by members of the Boan!." Having seen the marks sheet
produced before him the learned judge came to the conclusion that the H
    332                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A submission of learned counsel for the writ petitioners that members of the
    Board had given more marks at the interview to favourite candidates was
    not well founded. Had been such effort, in his view, the' members of the
    Board had every opportunity inasmuch as the requisition was for 98
    candidates whereas they had stopped short on selecting 62. The learned
    Judge dismissed the writ petitions. The Division Bench of the High Court
B
    in appeals did not find any ground to interfere with his Judgment.

          At an earlier stage of the hearing before this Court, namely, on 12th
    July, 1993, ·an order was passed which stated that the submission niade
    indicated that the problem to be resolved was much too serious to be dealt
C   with on adversarial contentions. There w~re very seri.ous allegations against
    the constitution, procedure and functioning of the Board. In view of the
    glaring infirmities that were noticed, all respondents, including those who
    had been selected and appointed, were ordered to be duly notified because
    it was possible that the court would decide that the entire selection process
    was infirm and quash the selections. The Chief Secretary of the State
D   Government was directed to furnish, upon affidavit, particulars regarding
    the constitution of the Board, the names and qualifications of its members
    and to produce the record and minutes of the Boards' proceedings.

          The learned Solicitor General appearing for the Board has produced
E   what remains of the Board's record pertaining to the impugned selection.
    The documents have been taken on ftle and we shall have occasion to refer
    to some of them.

          For the reasons which we now record, taken collectively, we are of
    the view that the selection made by the Board as aforesaid and the
F   appointments made by the State Government pursuant thereto need to be
    quashed.

           As aforesaid, the answer papers of the written examinations were
    destroyed even before the results of the selection.had been declared. The
G   resolution which has been quoted above states that the Board had decided
    to destroy the answer papers as there was no space to keep them in the
    Board's office. There was a shortage of space because invitations for
    applications for various posts had been issued and space was badly needed
    for keeping the same. In reply to our query, the learned Solicitor General
    fairly stated that there was on such shortage of space. In any event, what
H   is noteworthy about the resolution is its last sentence, which we have
       PRITPALSINGH v. STATEOFHARYANA[BHARUCHA,J.]                    333

emphasised. So great was the haste to destroy the answer papers that the A
destruction was already complete when the resolution was passed. The
shortage of_space could not have been so acutely felt so suddenly and the
explanation contained in the resolution does not explain or justify the
tearing hurry. The explanation is, therefore, suspect. ·

       The answer papers having been destroyed it becomes impossible to
                                                                             B
ascertain what marks each candidate had secured from the examiners upon
the answer papers themselves. Ordinarily, the examiners would have them-
selves tabulated the marks given by them against the serial numbers or
names of the candidates whose answer papers they had examined. No such
tabulation has been produced by the Board. There were four written C
papers. The Board would, in any event, have had to tabulate the marks
obtained by each candidate in each of the four papers and agg_regate the
same for the purposes of ascertaining which of the candidates had obtained
the qualifying marks or more. No such tabulation has been produced by
the Board. The resolution of the Board authorising payment to the ex- D
arniners shows that there were 13 of them. There were four written papers.
In each subject, therefore, there were more than one examiner and the
answer papers of the candidates were distributed amongst them. Ordinari-
ly, there would be a moderation of the marks given by two or more
examiners in the same subject so as to ensure that one had not been too
strict and other too lenient. No papers in this behalf have been produced E
by the Board.

      Much paper pertaining to the physical statistics of the candidates
declared to be successful at the written examination has been preserved by
the Board and produced. That it has been preserved but not other             F
documentation is noteworthy a candidate's height would remain ascer-
tainable so long as he was alive.

       From the record produced by the Board it appears .that very large
sheets of paper with the names of the candidates and their qualifications, G
etc., typed thereon were placed before the members of the Board who
interview them .Upon these sheets of paper there are large blanks, in that
no notation has been made with regard to many candidates one after the
other in serial order. Such notations as there are in pencil and they do not
always indicate how the candidates had fared. Along with these very large
sheets of paper there is a small strip of papers relating to the only H
    334                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   candidate who, for some reason, was interviewed on 3rd September, 1989.
    This strip of paper shows the final assessment of the candidate at the
    interview. There is no corresponding tabulation produced in respect of the
    candidates who appeared on the earlier dates of interviews. In other words,
    there is no tabulation of the final marks awarded to these candidates at the
    interview.
B
           Produced before us by the Board is the document which the learned
    Solicitor General stated, on instructions, had been produced before the
    learned Single Judge which he referred to as the original marks sheet duly
    signed by members of the Board". It is a compilation of six sheets of
C   foolscap paper. At the bottom of each sheet the rubber stamp Government
    of Haryana appears. The sheets set out in typescript against serial numbers
    the roll numbers and names of the successfull candidates and the marks
    secured by them at the written examination and the interview and the total
    there of. The sheets are held together by a tag. The last serial nnmber and
D   the candidate's name and particulars are typed a little above the middle of
    the last sheet. The last sheet is signed by all the members of the Board but
    at its foot. In other words, between the last typewritten entry on the last
    page and the signatures of the members of the Board thereon there is a
    yawning blank of about seven inches. It is reasonable to expect that, had
    the members of the Bol!rd signed this marks list after they had selected the
E   last candidate, they would have signed it immediately below the serial
    number, roll number, name and particulars of that candidate. The fact that
    they did not do so but signed at the foot of the concerned sheet leaving a
    vast gap itself suggests that they intended to the leave room for the addition
    of names to the list. This, taken together with the fact that the Board
F   recommended to the State Government thirty-nine candidates on 6th April,
     1990, twelve candidates on 11th April, 1990, one candidate on 25th April,
     1990, six candidates on 15th June, 1990, one candidate on 31st July, 1990,
    two candidates on 17th June, 1991 and one candidate on 14th November,
     1991 leaves us in no doubt that this marks list has been, and was intended
    to be, manipulated by the addition of names thereto as and when some
G    event took place. It does not require much imagination to guess what that
     evert was.

          We have mentioned that there was one candidate who was inter-
    viewed singly on 3rd September, 1989 and that the strip of paper showing
H   the final marks secured by him at the interview has been produced. That
       PRITPALSINGH v. STATEOFHARYANA[BHARUCHA,J.]                       335

sheet shows that the candidate had secured 20 marks at the interview but A"
the marks sheet referred to above shows that the candidate had secured
eighteen and a half marks at the interview.

      For all these reasons, taken together, we are satisfied that the selec-
tion made by the Board was not objective and fair and must be quashed           B
along with the appointment more by the State Government consequent
thereto.

       Learned counsel for some of the selected candidates, fairly, did not
address themselves to the pleadings when it was pointed out that this court
had already taken the view that this was a matter which involved the public     C
interest and could not be treated as purely adversarial, however, they drew
attention to this Court's judgment in Krishan Yadav and Anr. v. State of
Haryana & Ors., JT. (1994) SC 45, where the selections made by this very
Board of Taxation Inspectors and the appointment made consequent
thereon had been quashed after an enquiry had been conducted by the             D
Central Bureau of Investigation and the report thereon perused. It was
submitted that in this case also an enquiry by the C.B.I. should be ordered
and the report thereof awaited for there might be other documents which
the Board had not produced. It was also submitted by a learned counsel
that the marks sheet produced by the Board before us could not have been
the marks sheet produced by it before the learned Single Judge in the High      E
Court because, had it been produced before him, the learned Judge would
have immediately been struck by the yawning gap between the last
typewritren entry and the signatures of the members of the Board as
presently constituted had been appointed by politicians inimical to the
politicians who had appointed the Board as it was constituted at the            F
relevant time and that the former. were interested in maligning the latter
so that the documents they 'produced could not be relied upon. In the first
place, it is hardly conceivable that the members of the Board as then
constituted would oblige the Members of the Board as presently con-
stituted by appending their signatures to a document in such a manner as
would make the document immediately suspect. In the second place, the           G
learned single Judge accepted, which we do not, the reason for the destruc-
tion of the answer papers.

      It iS in the public interest that members of the police force should
be selected objectively and fairly. The factors that we have enumerated H
    336                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A above satisfy us that the selection made by the Board was not objective and
    fair. It is, therefore, in the public interest that the selections and the
    appointments made consequent thereon be quashed forthwith.

           We appreciate that it may be that there are among those selected
    some who deserved selection and who will, consequently, suffer as a result
B   of this order. There is, regretably, considering the state of the selection
    records, no way in such men can be identified. The public interest put-
    weighs their interest. The directions that we shall now give shall enable
    them to compete once again with those who had sought select with little
    or no disadvantage as a result of the years that have passed.
c         The appeals are allowed. The orders of the Division Benches under
    appeals and the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dismissing
    the writ petitions are set aside. The writ petitions are made absolute in the
    following terms : The selections made by the Board of Sub Inspectors of
    Police consequent upon the advertisement dated 21st January, 1988, as also
D   the appointment made by the State of Haryana pursuant thereto are
    quashed.

           A fresh selection shall be made by the Board for the 98 posts of Sub
    Inspectors of Police for which the Board had at the relevant time received
E   requisitions from the State Government. All candidates who had applied
    pursuant to the advertisement dated 21st January, 1988, and who were
    found eligible shall be entitled to appear for the written examinations, the
    total ma,ks whereof shall be 200. Those who are successful shall then
    appear for a physical test. Having regard to the fact that the candidates
    are now around the age of 30, the Inspector General of Police of the State
F   of Haryana or an officer of equivalent rank shall, having regard to this age,
    prescribe appropriate physical requirements. Those candidates who are
    found to possess these physical requirements shall be called for interview.
    The marks whereof shall be 25. Candidates who are successful at the
    interview shall be required to submit to physical tests, namely two races
G   and two jumps, the particulars of which shall also be prescribed by the
    Inspector General of Police or equivalent authority having regard to the
    age aforesaid.

          The Board is directed to preserve the answer papers of the can-
    didates and the tabulations of marks made by the examiners for atleast
H   three months after the declaration of the results of the selection. All
          PRITPALSINGH v. STATEOFHARYANA[BHARUCHA,J.]                     337

records of the Board itself pertaining to the selection shall be maintained A
in files or registers chronologically and these shall be preserved for the
aforesaid period.

       The advertisement announcing the fresh examinations shall state that
all candidates who had applied in response to the advertisement dated 21st
January, 1988, and who had been found qualified shall be entitled to B
appear. The advertisement shall be issued on or before 1st September,
1994. The advertisement shall state that those from among the aforesaid
candidates who intend to appear at the written examination shall so in-
timate to the Board on or before 15th September, 1994. The written
examination shall be held on and from 1st October, 1994. The evaluation C
of the marks obtained thereat shall be completed on or before 15th
November, 1994 and the marks obtained shall be published in three
prominent daily newspapers having a large circulation in the State of
Haryana, in addition to being displayed on the Board's notice board.
Candidate shall be called for physical test on or before 5th December,
1994. Candidates who qualify thereat shall be called for interview on or D
before 31st December, 1994. The results of the final selection shall be
published on or before 15th January, 1995 in the three daily newspapers.
aforementioned and also displayed on the Board's notice board

      The Board and the State of Haryana are required to ensure that the E
selection is conducted fairly, objectively and transparently. No member of
the Board as then constitute<! shall be permitted to have anything to do
with the selection now ordered.

         The Board shall pay to each of the appellants costs quantified at Rs.
5,000.

R.A.                                                         Appeals allowed.