SANTI PRASAD SINHA Vs. MD. ABDUL GANI ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order would reveal that the Court while invoking the provision under Sec. 165 of the Evidence Act noticed certain incriminating materials, which created an impression that there has been illegal recommendation in favour of the candidates, who secured lesser marks than the other deserving candidates and the appointments have been made on the basis thereof. The Single Bench further found that the appellant, who was an Advisor of the School Service Commission and the Convenor of the Five-Member Committee constituted by the Education Department, is required to disclose the affidavit of assets.

(2.) Though the order is interlocutory in nature and passed in furtherance of the proceeding but the Court must be careful and cautious when the direction is passed to disclose the assets in the form of affidavit so that it may not be disclosed or divulged to the litigating parties. Securing an affidavit of assets is for specified purposes and dependent upon the consequences and circumstances perceived in course of the proceeding but should not be used as pleading, which the parties have exchanged in course of the said proceeding.

(3.) Certain observations have been made in the impugned order against the appellant, which should not be construed as final but tentative in nature and, therefore, shall not stand in the way at the time of final disposal of the proceeding.