JAGTAR SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The appellant was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor, Central Bureau 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 receiv ed 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 appointment order in respect of the appellant was issued. After waiting for some time he submitted representation to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation on February 8, 1985 and another representation to the Government of India on May 13, 1985 No reply having been received from either of the authorities, he filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad on February 25, 1986 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 Com mission other formalities were gone into and it was found that the appellant was not a suitable person for appoint ment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. The respondents 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 special leave is against the judgment of the Tribunal.

(3.) Before us an affidavit has been find by Mr. Dandapani, Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, 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 Prosecutor. The documents are in a sealed cover. In para4 of the affidavit it is stated as under :