High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4353/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L.P. Sharma, lear ned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, who has also produced the record. By way of this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the selection for the post of Senior Laboratory (Lab) Assistant and Laboratory (Lab) Assistant conduc ted by the Gauhati University pursuant to the advertisement No. NTS/4/2011. Furt her prayer made is to appoint the petitioner in either of the two posts as a wom an candidate in terms of the Assam Women (Reservation of Vacancies in Services a nd Posts) Act, 2005. Case of the petitioner is that advertisement No. NTS/4/2011 was issued by the De puty Registrar of Gauhati University inviting applications from eligible candida tes for various posts, including for the posts of Senior Lab Assistant and Lab A ssistant. In so far the post of Senior Lab Assistant is concerned, the prescribe d qualification was B.sc or Polytechnic diploma in the concerned subject with at least three years professional experience in a related laboratory/technical set up, such as, Electronics and Communication Lab, Polytechnic and IT Lab, Biotech nology Lab, Physical Science Lab and Chemical Science Lab. Similar qualification was prescribed in respect of Mathematical Science Lab and Biological Science La b. In respect of the post of Lab Assistant, the qualification prescribed was B.s c or Polytechnic diploma in the concerned subject with at least one year profess ional experience in a related laboratory/technical set up in different specializ ed laboratories with similar qualifications prescribed for Mathematical Science Lab and Biological Science Lab. Petitioner applied for the posts of Senior Lab Assistant (Electronics and Commun ication Lab) as well as for the post of Lab Assistant (Electronics and Communica tion Lab). In respect of the post of Senior Lab Assistant, it was decided to have selection only through interview, which was held on 23.04.2011, wherein petitioner appear ed. However, in respect of Lab Assistant, the scheme of selection comprised of writt en test and interview. Written test was scheduled from 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. o n 28.04.2011. Result of the written test was to be declared on the same day at 1 1.00 a.m., followed by interview from 11.30 a.m., again on the same day. Petitio ner appeared in the written test for the post of Lab Assistant and on being shor t listed, she also appeared in the interview. As per the assessment of the peti tioner, she had performed well in both the interviews and was expecting her sele ction. According to the petitioner, though no select list was published, on an applicat ion filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, information was furnished by the Gauhati University authorities that 7 (seven) candidates were selected for the post of Senior Lab Assistant whereas 12 (twelve) candidates were selected f or the post of Lab Assistant. Further information revealed that there were 16 va cancies in the post of Senior Lab Assistant and 25 vacancies in the post of Lab Assistant. Against 16 vacancies in the post of Senior Lab Assistant, 47 candidat es were interviewed and against 25 vacancies in the post of Lab Assistant, 37 ca ndidates were interviewed. Amongst the 7 selected candidates for the post of Sen ior Lab Assistant, there is no woman candidate and amongst the 12 selected candi dates for the post of Lab Assistant, there is only 1(one) woman candidate. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeki ng the reliefs as indicated above. Contention of the petitioner is that against the 16 vacancies in the post of Sen ior Lab Assistant, only 7 (seven) candidates were selected, thereby leaving 9 va cancies. Likewise for 25 vacancies in the post of Lab Assistant, only 12 candida tes were selected, thus 13 posts remained vacant. There was no provision to rese rve vacancies for women candidates in terms of the Assam Women (Reservation of V acancies in Services and Posts) Act, 2005 (Act). Respondents have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken in the said affidavit is that interview for the two posts were held on 23.04.2011 and 28.04.2011 respecti vely. Pursuant to the interview held on 23.04.2011, 3 (three) candidates were se lected for the post of Senior Lab Assistant (Electronics and Communication Lab) in order of preference. Name of the petitioner did not figure in the select list . Similarly, for the post of Lab Assistant (Electronics and Communication Lab), 3 (three) candidates were selected in order of preference. Petitioner was not se lected for the post of Lab Assistant in the Electronics and Communication Lab. S ince petitioner was not selected, question of her appointment does not arise. In her reply affidavit, petitioner has reiterated her contention that provisions of the Act is applicable to the Gauhati University and in view of apparent non- compliance to the provisions of the Act, the selection stood vitiated. It is fur ther stated that one of the selected candidates against the post of Senior Lab A ssistant (Electronics and Communication Lab), namely, Ahidur Zaman, was also sel ected for the post of Scientific Officer in which post he has joined. Consequent ly, one post of Senior Lab Assistant (Electronics and Communication Lab) has fal len vacant. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines and , therefore, a detailed reference to such submissions is considered not necessar y. Before examining the record produced by Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Ga uhati University, relevant provisions of the Act may be briefly noticed. The Act provides for horizontal reservation of vacancies in services and posts f or women in the State of Assam. As per Section 2(b), which defines ’establishmen t’, an University would come within the definition of establishment. Section 4 o f the Act provides that at the commencement of the Act, 30% of the vacancies in respect of all appointments to the services and posts in the establishment which are required to be filled up by direct recruitment shall be reserved for women candidates, provided that such reservation shall be inclusive of the reservatio n provided statutorily or otherwise to the reserved categories, such as Schedule d Castes, Scheduled Tribes etc. Power of exemption and power to increase or decr ease percentage of reservation is vested with the State Government, who may exer cise such power on valid grounds. In case of contravention of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, the appointing authority would be liable for disciplinary action and penalty as per Section 6. Thus, from a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act, it is quite clear th at the establishment of Gauhati University is covered by the said Act and the Ga uhati University is statutorily bound to provide reservation for women in matter s of direct recruitment. Coming to the record, a perusal thereof would show that in the interview for the post of Senior Lab Assistant (Electronics and Communication Lab), altogether 8 candidates, including petitioner, had appeared. As per the minutes of the select ion committee meeting held on 23.04.2011, the selection committee recorded the f ollowing: (cid:28)The committee verified the connected documents of the candidates. The committe e considered the performance of the candidates in the oral interview and recomme nded the following candidates for appointment as Sr. Lab Assistant (Electronics and Communication Lab), GU in order of preference. 1. 2. 3. Sri Nava Kr. Talukdar. (cid:29) Likewise, in the selection for the post of Lab Assistant (Electronics and Commun ication Lab), a total number of 6 candidates, including the petitioner, appeared . In the minutes of the selection committee meeting held on 28.04.2011, the sele ction committee made the following recommendation: (cid:28)The committee verified the connected documents of the candidates. The committe e considered the performance of the candidates in the written test and the oral interview and recommended the following candidates for appointment as Lab. Assis tant (Electronics Lab.) GU in order of preference. 1. Sri Ahidur Zaman Sri Ripul Kalita Shri Bipul Patowary (PWD) 2. 3. Shri Hirak Jyoti Goswami Shri Jeherul Islam. (cid:29) The record does not disclose any marking or assessment guidelines laid down or f ollowed by the Gauhati University authorities to assess the suitability of the c andidates. There is no comparative assessment of merit of the candidates. Nothin g is discernible from the record as to how and on what basis the selection was m ade. Minutes of selection do not indicate how the candidature of the petitioner was assessed or why she was not found suitable for selection. There is no indica tion as on what basis the three candidates for both the posts were selected. Suc h a method of selection cannot be said to be in accordance with law. In the opinion of the Court, the selection held for both the categories of post is clearly irregular. Moreover, it is apparent from the record that the provisio ns of the Act have not been followed though the University is statutorily bound to follow the provisions of the Act. However, since the selected candidates are not before the Court, the Court refra ins from interfering with the selection made. In such circumstances, Court is of the view that it would meet the ends of Justi ce if the case of the petitioner for selection against either the post of Senior Lab Assistant or the post of Lab Assistant is reconsidered. Accordingly, respon dents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner keeping in mind the observations made above within a period of one month from today. Consequential o rder(s) shall be passed thereafter. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Record produced by learned Standing Counsel is returned back.