Supreme Court reinstates appellant in exam panel, stresses fair process & evidence disclosure.

The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order dropping the appellant's name from a selected panel due to alleged adoption of unfair means in an examination. The Court emphasized the importance of providing the appellant with all relevant documents, including one from the Forensic Department that formed the basis of the decision. The matter was remanded back to the original authority, stressing procedural fairness and the right to be informed of evidence used against a party. The judgment underscores the significance of transparency, due process, and the fundamental right to a fair hearing in administrative proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of dropping name from selected panel based on adoption of unfair means in examination; Non-supply of crucial document to appellant; Failure of Tribunal to consider non-supply of document as a ground for challenge.

Analysis:
The appellant volunteered for a post and was successful in preliminary and main exams but was dropped from the selected panel due to alleged adoption of unfair means. The decision was based on a document from the Forensic Department, which was not provided to the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge without considering the non-supply of the document as a ground for appeal. The respondent admitted in the counter-affidavit that the document was not supplied to the appellant. The appellant's counsel reiterated this point in the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the decision to drop the appellant's name cannot be sustained without providing her with the crucial document. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for further action, emphasizing the importance of supplying all relevant documents to the appellant before taking any further steps.

This judgment highlights the significance of procedural fairness and the right to be informed of crucial evidence used against a party. The failure to provide the appellant with the document from the Forensic Department, which formed the basis of the decision to drop her name from the selected panel, was deemed a violation of natural justice. The Court emphasized the principle that parties must be given access to all relevant documents that are relied upon in making decisions that affect their rights. The decision underscores the importance of transparency and due process in administrative proceedings, ensuring that individuals are afforded a fair opportunity to respond to allegations made against them. The judgment serves as a reminder of the fundamental right to a fair hearing and the obligation of authorities to provide complete information to parties involved in legal proceedings.

---