1997(2) Supreme 96
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.
Reference Case No. 1 of 1995
(Reference under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India regarding enquiry and report on allegation against Shri Sher Singh, Member Haryana Public Service Commission.)
Decided on 29-1-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : A.H. Desai, Attorney General of India, P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv., Mahabir Singh, Prem Malhotra, B.S. Chahar, D.B. Vohra, Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anu Mohla, Pallav Shishodia, P. Parmeswaran, Advocates.
Held : Such competitive examinations, particularly for Civil Services, have always been contentious issues. Even on earlier occasions so far as Haryana Civil Services Examinations are concerned, there have been a good number of litigation with candidates challenging the examination results. This is borne out from the documents filed by the parties. The secrecy of the entire proceedings being so important, we would have been happy if Shri Sher Singh, instead of taking such keen interest in the whole affair, had shown aloofness and had kept himself away from handling of either the key or the award list. (Para 18)
Further held : The entire evidence on record suggests that Shri Sher Singh had some axe to grind. The testimony of Shri Kataria and Shri Tuli that Shri Sher Singh wanted to influence the result of his nephew read with all the other evidence on record goes to prove that Shri Sher Singh did approach Shri Kataria for favours for his nephew. The allegation made in the resignation letter and extracted in the order of reference is, therefore, held to be proved. (Para 22)
JUDGMENT
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. - This is a reference from the President of India for enquiry and report as to whether Shri Sher Singh, Member of Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"), ought, on the ground of misbehaviour, be removed from the office of the Member of the Commission.
2. The Commission held a written examination from 2.10.1993 to 15.10.1993 for recruitment to 62 posts for different services under the Government of Haryana including 12 posts in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) (hereinafter referred to as "the said examination"). However, before the results were declared, some difference arose between the Members of the Commission and certain irregularities in keeping the records of the examination were alleged. This led to scrapping of the said examination followed by the resignation of the Chairman Shri L.D. Kataria from the Commission. The resignation letter submitted to Shri Dhanik Lal Mandal, Governor of Haryana, disclosed the allegations of facts leading to his resignation. The facts alleged by him can be narrated in brief as under :
3. The Secretary of the Commission was responsible for maintaining secrecy with regard to the entire process of examination and interview so as to ensure objective and impartial selection of candidates. Neither the Chairman nor the Members were expected to know the results of any individual candidate in the written examination. The examiners were to be selected by the Secretary in consultation with the Chairman and the Secretary had to maintain complete secrecy about the same. The papers sent for marking and received back from the examiners, were handled by the Secretary under the orders of the Chairman. The marking is done on the basis of fictitious roll numbers (code numbers) given to each answer sheet after tearing out the original roll numbers called the clippings. The key i.e. the document containing clue to decoding the fictitious roll numbers, is drawn up by the Secretary and kept under sealed cover by him. The results are compiled on the basis of the fictitious roll numbers and later the key is opened in the presence of the Chairman at the time the results are to be finally compiled and declared. Thereafter, all relevant papers including the key are sealed and kept till the interviews are over and results are finally declared. In the said examination, Shri T.R. Tuli, former Secretary, exhibited carelessness by not sealing the key containing the original and fictitious roll number in time and when on 29th December, 1995 the Members of the Commission wanted to see the key for ensuring its secrecy, the Secretary brought the key in his brief-case which he claimed was kept in double lock but not sealed. The Secretary was reprimanded for the lapse. The key was sealed and signed by the two Members in addition to the Secretary. The Secretary Shri T.R. Tuli was transferred and the new Secretary took over the proceeded to compile the result. The Members thereafter wanted to see certain records including the secret documents on 21st June, 1994. The Secretary on that day was on leave. On 22nd June, 1994, the news item in local Tribune was published under the caption "No confidence in HPSC Chief". In order to clarify the matter, the Chairman discussed the matter with the Members and convened a Press Conference on 23.6.1994. During the Press Conference, although the Chairman emphasised that the said examination was not void and that all allegations would be looked into before the result was finally declared, Shri Sher Singh, Member of the Commission, vociferously repeated the allegations regarding non-sealing of key as also the clippings and reiterated that the said examination needs to be held void. The controversy had been blown out of all proportions leading to erosion of the image of the Commission. The Chairman had defended the position of the Commission because the omission to seal the key was a technical lapse. However, in view of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.