UNION OF INDIA Vs. GURKIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a person who has been selected against anticipated vacancies, acquires a right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by mandamus is the principal question which arises for determination in the appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Single Judge who allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and issued a mandate directing the appellants to offer him the appointment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Central Reserve Police Force.

(2.) THE facts. In 1985, 45 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Central Reserve Police Force and Indo Tibetan Border Police were advertised In response thereto, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) also applied and underwent written test, physical test, interview etc. On April 9, 1986, a select list of 14 persons for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police Group 'a-l post in Central Reserve Police Force (for short C. R. P. F.) was prepared and the petitioner's name figured at S. No. 11 in the list. The candidates selected were required to be examined by a Medical Board. The petitioner was medically examined and was declared medically fit on May 2. 1986 and he was informed accordingly. On June 12, 1986, the Director General, C. R. P. F. enquired 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 in the C. R. P. F. was he willing to be appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police In the Indo Tibetan Border Police, and if so, he should forward his written preference for the C. R. P. F. In response thereto, the petitioner forwarded his preference for the C. R. P. F Out of the select list, candidates of S. Nos. 12, 13 and 14 were deputed for training, the petitioner, whose name figured at S. No. 11 of the select list did not receive the requisite offer. On enquiry, the Director General, C. R. P. F. informed the petitioner on November 9, 1986, that "it is not possible to give you any offer of appointment in the force. " This decision of the appellants intimated to the petitioner through the Director General, C. R. P. F. was challenged in the writ petition on the ground that after the petitioner had been selected, followed by declaration of his fitness be 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 appellants to refuse the appointment to him. The Coptic information without disclosing any reasons offended the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before taking the aforesaid decision.

(3.) WRITTEN statement was filed on behalf of she respondents. The factual position insofar as the selection of the petitioner was concerned was admitted. However, the decision of not offering the appointment to the petitioner was justified on the ground that reports of serious nature were received against the petitioner in the reports it was stated' that after the Operation Blue star, he had been indulging in anti-national activities and have been keeping association with the extremists and it was hazardous 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. ,