High Court · 2012

The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contentio ns raised in the writ petitions. According to them, the selection was conducted in a fair and transparent manner and that no arbitrary and malafide exercise of power is involved in the selection process. As per the direction of this Court, learned State counsel has also produced the records and I have gone through the same. Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah and Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner s have submitted that prima facie there being evidence of making the selection i n a most improper manner giving go-bye to the settled principles of fair play an d transparency in the matter of selection, the entire selection is liable to be interfered with by directing fresh selection. Referring to the aforesaid Rules, Mr. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners involved in W.P.( C) No. 1548/2009 and W.P.(C) No. 3829/2010, submits that for judging the physica l fitness and bicycling having been prescribed in the Rules, it was incumbent on the part of the selection committee to conduct the test of bicycling. He also s ubmits that the selection committee was obliged to lay down the procedure of sel ection beforehand instead of adopting the particular procedure amidst the selec tion and/or after publication of the advertisement. In this connection, he has r eferred to Rule 6 (i) (c) of the aforesaid Rules which provides that the Selecti on Board made the selection in accordance with the scheme of selection prescribe d by the Govt. He submits that no such scheme of selection having been prescribe d by the Govt., the selection committee ought not have held the selection prescr ibing its own methodology and that too, after publication of the advertisement o nly. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3231/2009, submits that some of the candidates who did not qualify in the physic al fitness test, had also been called for interview. According to him, before ma king the selection and appointing the candidates, the antecedent of the candida tes had not been verified and thus, there was a mockery of the selection in whic h favouritism and nepotism played the main role. Mr. R.K. Borah, learned State counsel on the other hand, submits that th e selection having been conducted in a just and fair manner, the writ Court exer cising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind ia, will not sit on appeal over the findings arrived at by the expert body, i.e. the selection committee. Referring to the records of the selection, he submits that the basic criteria of judging the suitability of the candidates by conducti ng the physical fitness test and interview having been followed and in absence o f any definite and distinct allegation made against the selection, same is requi red to be upheld. Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the allegations made in the writ petitions are all vague and indefinite. He submits that the allegations of nepotism and favouritism being ill founded and based on no evidence, such allegations are not to be given any weitage. Mr. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the private respondents countering the allegations of the petitioners that respondent No. 8 is related to one of t he Members of the selection committee, submits that such allegation is ill-found ed inasmuch as the said Member belongs to another community to which the respond ents No. 8 does not belong to. In this connection, he has produced the caste cer tificate of the respondent No. 8 to show that he belongs to Tiwa (Lalung) commun ity. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the lea rned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire records. I ha ve also gone through the records produced by Mr. Borah, learned State counsel. Pursuant to the selection, the selected candidates have already joined t heir services. They were appointed sometime in January, 2009 and thus, almost fo ur years have gone by since they were appointed. The recruitment Rules, i.e. Assam Jail Service Rules, 1986, provides for appointment to the post of Jail Warder (Male and Female). Rule-6 provides for d irect recruitment. As noticed above, Rule 6 (i)(c) states that the Selection Boa rd shall make the selection in accordance with the scheme of selection prescribe d by the Govt. It is on this provision learned counsel for the petitioners have emphasised to bring home their point of argument that the selection committee on its own could not have framed the scheme of selection so as to conduct the sele ction on that basis. If the above argument is to be accepted, then the other leg of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the physical fitness test was no t conducted as per the Schedule-III prescribed under Rule 8 (ii) of the Rules, w ill have to be abandoned. In the said Rule the qualification etc. have been laid down as per the requirement of which essential qualification is HSLC pass and k nowledge of bicycling. This qualification is applicable in respect of Male Warde r. So far as the female Warden is concerned, the essential qualification is Clas s-VII pass. In the instant case, the selection committee conducted the selection fi rstly confining the same to the physical test and thereafter the candidates who could qualify the physical fitness test had been called for the interview and wh o could qualify in the interview had been selected and appointed. The expression (cid:28)in accordance with the scheme of selection as incorporated in the Rule 6 (i) ( c) (cid:29) cannot be said to be the procedure of selection prescribed by the Govt. The Rule itself provides for the procedure of selection and essential and desirable qualification for the selection. The expression (cid:28)scheme of selection (cid:29) prescribe d by the Govt. could even mean the time frame or the schedule of the programme w ithin which the selection should be conducted and completed. The particular meth odology towards conducting the selection may also be prescribed. However, same b y itself cannot be said to be a mandate of the said Rules requiring the Govt. to formulate the particular scheme/procedure for conducting the selection. Above apart, in the advertisement itself the essential and desirable qua lification etc. had been laid down. In addition, physical standard required for the selection as Jail Warder (Male and Female) had also been indicated. It was p ursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners alongwith others had offered their candidatures and upon acceptance of the same they had been invited for phy sical fitness test in which they duly participated. When they could clear the physical fitness test alongwith others, the selected candidates had been called for interview. After conducting the interview on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates, the select list had been published and on that basis the app ointments had also been made. According to the petitioners, considering the nature of the job involved in the post, no weitage ought to have been given in the interview. The responde nts in their counter affidavit have stated about physical fitness test and the i nterview (viva voce). The physical fitness test comprised of a race covering a d istance of 1.60 K.M. (1,600 meters) for male and 1.00 K.M. (1000 meters) for the female within a period of 6 minutes 30 seconds. The interview comprised of tota l 50 marks distributed in (i) Certificate in NCC/Home Guard/Territorial Army/Ex -serviceman, (ii) certificate of proficiency in sports/martial arts, (iii) certi ficate in tradecraft like Motor Driving/Electrician/Plumbing/ Typewriting/ Compu ter operation/physiotherapy/Radiology and (iv) personality & general knowledge. Those who could qualify in the physical test had only been called for in terview in which the suitability of the candidates had been judged on the basis of the marks allotted in the aforesaid four categories. It was during interview the suitability of the candidates have been judged on the basis of the distribu tion of marks under various categories including personality and general awarene ss. As per the requirement of the Rules referred to above, i.e. Rule 6 (i) (c), the selection committee may hold the such test and/or interview and undertakes s crutiny of such documents as may be considered necessary. Following the said Ru les, the selection committee conducted the selection inclusive of interview in w hich proficiency in different branches possessed by the candidates have been exa mined. As regards the plea of the petitioners involved in W.P.(C) 3829/2010 and W.P.(C) No. 1548/2009 that the test of bicycling was not conducted, suffice is to say that the test is not prescribed in Schedule-III under Rule 8(ii) of the a foresaid Rules. What is prescribed is only knowledge of bicycling. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 3829/20 10, it has been stated that the respondent No. 7 failed to qualify in the physic al test, a fact which does not find mention in the writ petition. It is in this context, the respondents have alleged suppression of material fact by the petit ioners. As regards the plea of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 3231/2009 that som e of the candidates did not qualify in the physical test, but had been called fo r the interview, the respondents have clarified the position in the counter affi davit. It has been stated that the said four candidates indicated by the petitio ners had duly qualified in the physical fitness test. In paragraph-12 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 3829/2010, the respondents have given the details of the said candidates who allegedly did not qualify in the physical fitness test, but had been invited for the intervie w. It has been shown meticulously that they had qualified in the physical test a nd called for the interview in which also they competed successfully. As regards the allegation in respect of one Ms. Pranita Devi that she could not qualify in the physical test as she was in her family way, it has been stated by the respo ndents that she duly appeared in the interview as he could qualify in the physic al test. The respondents have also denied that some of the selected candidates c ould qualify only because they were related to some members of the selection com mittee. Law is well settled that in case of any particular allegations of malafide and colourable exercise of power by the members of the selection committee, the said members of the committee will have to be added as party respondents and the all egations will have to be founded on definite and distinct statements with disclo sure of material particulars. However, on perusal of the writ petitions, no such concrete materials, definite and distinct, could be gathered. Moreover, the mem bers of the selection committee are also not party respondents. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ions and they are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.