Showing posts with label interview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interview. Show all posts

Friday, 14 August 2015

Whether selection of candidate is vitiated on the ground that all candidate's were called for interview?

 Furthermore, we find that there is no rule of law as to
the ratio of number of vacancies to the number of
candidates for being called for interview; although it may
be a rule of prudence. This Court has found in Mohinder
Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 662,
as also in Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4
SCC 417, that although it may be improper for the Selection
Committee to call such large number of candidates for
interview, but selection cannot be vitiated merely on this
ground if such an action is not tainted by mala fide or
oblique motive. In Mohinder Sain Garg (supra), this Court
gave one more reason not to accept this argument which
squarely applies to this case as well; this Court found
that the Respondents stood no chance of being called for
interview if candidates upto three times the number of
posts were called for interview. In the case on hand, on
this score, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh
has made a similar contention. Even the appellants herein
have not presented a case that had they been called for
interview, being only four times the number of vacancies,
they would have been short listed in that list. Thus, we
find this argument as a misplaced one.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6549 OF 2014
HC Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. ...Appellant(s)
:Versus:
Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Citation;AIR 2015 SC2342
Print Page

Tuesday, 31 March 2015

Whether public prosecutor can interview witness before trial?

Cr.P.C. S.231: Public Prosecutor can interview the witness before hand: The situation in a case where the prosecution cited categories of witnesses of the occurrence, one consisting of persons closely related to the victim and the other consisting of witnesses who have no such relation, the public prosecutor’s duty to the Court may require him to produce witnesses from the later category, also subject to his discretion to limit to one or two among them. But if the public prosecutor got reliable information that any one among that category would not support the prosecution version he is free to state in court about that fact and skip the witness from being examined as a prosecution witness. It is open to the defence to cite him and examine him as a defence witness. The decision in this regard has to be taken by the Public Prosecutor in a fair manner. He can interview the witness before hand to enable him to know well in advance the stand which that particular person would be adopting when examined as a witness in Court.

Supreme Court of India

Banti @ Guddu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2003
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat
Citation;AIR 2004 SC 261.
Print Page