GURKIRPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Gurkirpal Singh has challenged the validity of the order dated 18th November, 1986, issued by the Director-General Central Reserve Police Force, Government of India (Ministry of Home Affairs), New Delhi, by which the petitioner was informed that it was not possible to give him any offer of appointment in the Force; even though he had been selected for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in open competition and had already been found fit in the medical examination as also his character and antecedents stood already verified on 14th May, 1986, by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, to the effect, that there was nothing against the petitioner criminally/politically or otherwise in Police record, which would in any way render his entry into government service as an undesirable person.

(2.) The petitioner is a Graduate and sportsman having a number of distinctions to his credit in the sports of Handball and Basketball, besides participating in the Inter-University at the National level and his name found place in the Rolls of Honours in the D.A.V. College, Jullundur. In 1985, 45 posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Reserve Police Force and Indo Tibetan Border Police were advertised. In response thereto, the petitioner also applied and underwent the written test, physical test, interview etc. On 9th April, 1986, a select list of 14 persons for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Group 'A' post) in the C.R.P.F. was prepared and the name of the petitioner was at number 11 in that list. The candidates were required to be examined by the Medical Board before which the petitioner was called to appear on 2nd May, 1986, the petitioner was declared medically fit and he was informed accordingly by the Chairman, Standing Medical Board and Civil Surgeon, Amritsar. Thereafter, on 12th June, 1986, the Director General Central Reserve Police Force, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, inquired from the petitioner that though his name found place in the list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police i.e. the Central Reserve Police Force, was he still willing to be appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Indo Tibetan Border Police; and if so, he should forward his written consent to the Director General immediately. In response thereto, the petitioner forwarded his preferance for the Central Reserve Police Force. However, when out of the select list, candidates at numbers 12, 13 and 14 were deputed for training, whereas the petitioner whose name figured at number 11 in the select list did not receive the requisite offer, he inquired from the respondents the reasons for his non-appointment. In response thereto, on 18th November, 1986, the Director General, C.R.P.F., informed the petitioner that. "It is not possible to give you any offer of appointment in the Force". This decision of the respondent Union of India intimated to the petitioner through the Director General, C.R.P.F., respondent No. 2, by the above communication, has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that after the petitioner had cleared the written test, physical test, and interview and had already been selected, followed by declaration of his fitness by the Medical Board and clearance of the verification of his character and antecedents by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, it was wholly arbitrary on the part of the respondents to refuse the appointment to him, much less by a cryptic information without disclosing and reasons therefor and without affording any opportunity of hearing to him before taking the aforesaid decision.

(3.) Written statement has been filed by the respondents in which factual position has completely been admitted. While justifying their action in refusing appointment to the petitioner, it has been stated that the respondents had received reports of a very serious nature against the petitioner, and ever since the operation 'Blue Star' he had been including in anti-national activities and in keeping association with the extremists. Under these circumstances, it was hazarduous to appoint the petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police in C.R.P.F. which has to perform vital role in the maintenance of law and order and security duties. In their written statement, it was also stated by the respondents that there were certain secret reports received by them against the petitioner which, on further verification, were found to be correct and it was on that basis that the respondents took a decision not to take any offer of appointment to the petitioner in the larger interest of the organisation. This action of the respondents, according to them, was in consonance with the instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time. In addition to the aforesaid averments made in the written statement, Mr. H.S. Brar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of India, also produced a secret file containing the correspondence relating to the verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner.