SUNDER SINGH Vs. D G OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties. The applicant's specific case is that he has written in the exams well and the procedure prescribed indicate that he should attach his name-slip to the answer-book. On 5/8/1987, he made a representation that his name-slip was removed from the answer-book and attached to the answer-sheet of a person bearing the same name but no inquiry was made. In the year 1989, when he was not called for interview for ranking, since his name did not find place among the qualified candidates called for interview, he made a representation. Still no action was taken nor was he called for interview. Therefore, he filed a writ petition in the High court seeking direction to the respondents to interview him for the merit list for selection as a sub-Inspector. The High court dismissed the writ petition in limine. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed in this court, it was stated that a Committee of ten superior officers screened the answer-book and found that the appellant did not pass the examination. According to their own statement the rules require that only a three-member Committee was to be constituted. Under the circumstances, ten-member Committee, as stated in the counter-affidavit filed in this court passes beyond comprehension. It is stated in the order of the High court that the records have been destroyed. That stand has not been taken in the counter-affidavit filed in this court. On the other hand, the counter shows as if they have seen the record and from the record it was discerned that the appellant did not pass the examination. In view of the contrary stand and the backdrop of the circumstances, it is obvious that the record has deliberately been destroyed to suppress the real facts. The procedure indicates that they are to be preserved for 5 years.