Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(IV) Though a Government Order dated 12 September 1994, which has been issued by the State Government to ensure a proper verification of character and antecedents requires an enquiry to be made from the Collector and District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police both at the original place to which the applicant belongs and the place of posting, the enquiry in the present case was directed only to the Collector and District Magistrate Mainpuri and not to the Collector and District Magistrate, Agra; Agra being the place of origin of the first respondent;

(III) The object and purpose of a verification of antecedents and character is that a person with an adverse criminal record is not appointed to a constitutional post. What will vitiate an appointment is not a failure to conduct a verification of character and antecedents. The appointment can stand vitiated only if the antecedents of an appointee render his or her continuance improper. Consequently, an absence of verification of the antecedents of the first respondent through the Collector and District Magistrate, and Superintendent of Police, Agra should not make any difference;

Now, it would be material to note that the Government Order dated 12 September 2014 provides a procedure for verification of character and antecedents of persons who have been appointed, inter alia, to the Public Service Commission either as Chairperson or as members. The Government Order notes that the attention of the State Government had been drawn to the fact that appointments are made to the Commission and to other statutory tribunals of persons against whom an investigation is being conducted in respect of serious charges or whose character is in doubt, as a result of which the image of the State is damaged. In order to obviate such a situation, modalities were laid down for conducting a verification of character and antecedents. The Government Order states, inter alia, that in the case of a candidate who does not belong to the official category, a verification should be conducted at the present place of residence as well as the original place of residence. In the order of appointment of the first respondent as a member of the Commission of 28 November 2006, there was a reference to both the institution where he was working in Mainpuri as well as to his original place of residence in Agra. Clearly, therefore, the State Government was in knowledge of the fact that though the first respondent was working in a post-graduate degree college as a Principal at Mainpuri, his original place of residence within the terms of the Government Order dated 12 September 1994 was at Agra. In spite of this, no verification of antecedents and character was made at Agra. This has a considerable degree of bearing in the facts of the present case, as we shall now consider.

As we find from the record, relevant factors which would have a bearing on the ability of the first respondent to discharge his duties have been ignored. Relevant material having a bearing on the antecedents and character of the first respondent has not been borne in mind. There has been absolutely no application of mind to merits of other competing candidates who formed part of the available pool of candidates who had expressed their willingness for appointment. One name alone was hand picked. The process for nomination which was initiated on 29 March 2013 was completed on that day and the appointment was notified barely within a period of few days thereafter. The entire process of verification of antecedents and character was completed on a Sunday which was 31 March 2013. The process is thoroughly destructive of the rule of law and cannot be countenanced by a constitutional court. This falls within the parameters of an exceptional case, as laid down in both the judgments in Salil Sabhlok. The submission which has been urged by ASGI that this Court has to bear in mind the fact that the first respondent has continued to work as Chairperson for a period of about two years and more will not displace the patent arbitrariness. The appointment was ultra vires Article 316. Constitutional illegalities are not sanctified by the passage of time.