Intelligence reports

Without disclosure of adverse materials and affording opportunity of defense, petitioner was deprived of his appointment order, which act of respondents was not only unfair but also against principles of natural justice and spirit of Arts. 4 & 10-A of the Constitution

Principle audi alteram partem was always considered to be embedded in statue, even if there was no implied or express provision

No adverse action could be taken against anyone without providing an opportunity of defense to rebut the material

High Court directed competent authority to call for character and antecedent reports of petitioner afresh from concerned agencies, as it was brought on record that petitioner was involved in immoral activities and did not enjoy good reputation

High Court further directed that in case intelligence reports regarding character and antecedents of petitioner were adverse, then petitioner would be confronted with the material sought to be used against him, who was entitled to an opportunity of defense to rebut the material, to satisfy requirements of principles of natural justice and to obey command of Art. 4 of the Constitution

High Court also directed that in case character and antecedent reports of petitioner were found satisfactory the competent authority, would issue appointment order to the petitioner

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Central Selection Board on the basis of adverse intelligence reports, did not consider the case of petitioner for promotion

Plea raised by authorities was that it was a matter pertaining to terms and conditions of service

Validity

Selection Board did not apply its proper judicious mind to the case of petitioner, which was not covered within the terms and conditions of civil servant

Appeal was not competent before Service Tribunal against the decision/order of departmental authorities, determining fitness or otherwise of officer for promotion to higher post

Constitutional petition, held, was maintainable in circumstances.