Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(16) Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel in C.W.P. 1666/1990 emphatically argued that the appointment of the departmental candidates out of 60 shows that it is a case of circumventing the prescription of the Rule that 50% of the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and if candidates are not available, these posts should be filled up by deputation or transfer.

(17) Only because a very large number of in house candidates (departmental candidates) are selected it cannot be said that the selection process was a mere 'eyewash' and the real .object was to defeat the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. This situation, no doubt, creates suspicion as to the credibility of the selection process. But suspicion can not be a substitute for proof. We are always susceptible to develop suspicion in such matters; the tendency is to stigmatise the public functionaries and the methodology behind the discharge of public functions. But, a court of law cannot be and should not be swayed by such a wave of suspicion. Better evidence is needed to set at naught the selection process resulting in the appointments of a very large number of candidates, on the ground of arbitrariness or malafides; at any rate, the alleged subtle device adopted to defeat the statutory provisions should be more patent and glaring. I may also add that no pleading is clear and specific, alleging any such device having been adopted to defeat the Rules. RE: Question N0.2 :