High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 5682/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Directorate of Employment and Craftsmen Training, Assam. By way of the present petition under article 226 of the Constitu 2. tion of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the selection process in any manner and to declare the final result of the viva-voce as well as typing/computer test of candidates held on 16-06-2011 in re spect of the lone post of Junior Assistant under the District Employment Exchang e, North Lakhimpur. 3. Case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that Director of Employment and Craftsmen Training, Assam (respondent No.2) issued a n advertisement, which was published in the newspaper (cid:28)The Assam Tribune (cid:29) on 17- 12-2010, for filling up of 34 vacancies in the post of Junior Assistant in diffe rent Employment Exchanges under respondent No.2. It was notified that selection process would comprise of written test and typing/computer test for those who qu alified in the written test. There would also be viva-voce. 4. As per the said advertisement, there is one unreserved vacancy i n the District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur. Petitioner being eligible, applied for the said post. 5. Written test was held on 13-02-2011 at Industrial Training Insti tute, Tezpur. Petitioner was successful in the written test. He was informed vid e call letter dated 03-06-2011 to appear before the Selection Committee headed by Deputy Director, Labour and Employment Department, Central Assam Zone-Cum-Cha irman, Selection Committee (respondent No.4) for viva-voce on 16-06-2011. Petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on 16-06-20 6. 11. According to the petitioner, there was viva-voce followed by typing/computer test. As per petitioner’s assessment, he performed satisfactorily in both. After about 3 months, petitioner came across a notice issued by 7. respondent No.2, which was published in the newspaper (cid:28)The Assam Tribune (cid:29) on 30- 09-2011. As per the said notice, the results of the selection process for the po st of Junior Assistant in the different Employment Exchanges were declared. Howe ver, it was notified that the result of one post of Junior Assistant in the Dist rict Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur alongwith two other posts in Tezpur an d Dhemaji have been kept in abeyance. 8. According to the petitioner, he could gather that in response to an application filed by some candidates under the Right to Information Act, 200 5, information was furnished by the State Public Information Officer that in cas e of District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur, result could not be declared due to non-completion of official process. 9. g the reliefs as indicated above. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seekin Petitioner has contended that the lone vacancy in the post of Ju 10. nior Assistant under the District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur has not b een filled up at the instance of the present incumbent holding the office of res pondent No.2. He has interferred with the selection while the selection process was on as he wanted selection of a particular candidate. 11. This Court by order dated 14-11-2011 directed the respondents no t to take any viva-voce / computer and typing test afresh for the post of Junior Assistant in District Employment Exchange, North Lakhimpur.
Legal Reasoning
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed affidavit. Stand taken in the 12. affidavit is that a written complaint was lodged by one candidate, namely, Shri Lakhi Hazarika who had appeared in the interview. Complainant alleged that he wa s given only one minute for the computer test which was wholly inadequate to tes t his skill. Respondent No.2 decided to examine the veracity of the complaint. E valuation Sheets of the viva-voce test of all the five members of the Selection Committee were called for and scrutinized. The scrutiny of viva-voce test and co mputer test evaluation sheets revealed that petitioner has secured 10 marks out of 10 in computer test. In the viva-voce also he has been allotted 10 marks out of 10 by all the five members of the Selection Committee. On the other hand, the other three candidates have secured only 1 or 2 marks out of 10 in both viva-vo ce and computer test. Respondent No.2 then decided to look into the marks secure d by all the four candidates in the written test. It revealed that the complaina nt had secured the highest marks in the written test i.e. 82 as against 67.5 sec ured by the petitioner. In view of such glaring irregularity, it was decided to have a fresh computer test and viva-voce of the said candidates in the presence of an observer of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur. The ab ove decision has been taken to ensure fairness in the selection process. Accordi ngly, letter dated 29-10-2011 was issued to the respondent No.4 to re-conduct th e computer/typing test of all candidates simultaneously in presence of an observ er deputed by Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur and thereafter to hold viva-v oce of the candidates. 13. Petitioner has filed reply affidavit. He has stated that by his intervention, respondent No.2 has cast doubt on the impartiality of the members of the Selection Committee. Respondent No.2 wants selection of a particular cand idate and he has taken advantage of his position as Director. Respondent No.2 ca nnot sit over the decision of the Selection Committee as an appellate or reviewi ng authority. Direction of respondent No.2 dated 29-10-2011 for holding the inte rview afresh is uncalled for and wholly unauthorized. 14. Mr. M.Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that when the selection process is not yet complete in the sense that recommend ation is yet to be made, appointing authority cannot interfere with the process of selection conducted by the Selection Committee. If the same is allowed, it wi ll completely erode the autonomy and authority of the Selection Committee. It wi ll give unbridled power to the appointing authority to impose its decision on th e Selection Committee. He submits that petitioner has performed well and therefo re he has been given high marks by the members of the Selection Committee. There is nothing unusual or abnormal about this. He therefore seeks a direction to th e respondents to declare the result of the selection which has been illegally wi thheld. 15. Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel submits that respondent No.2 h ad to take the above decision in the larger public interest as otherwise the ima ge of the Department would have suffered. When glaring irregularities were notic ed, respondent No.2 could not have shut his eyes and allowed the seal of approva l to such anomalies. 16. Submissions made have been considered. 17. Though the argument of Mr. Nath at the first blush appears attra ctive, a careful scrutiny of the documents placed on record would however reveal a disturbing picture, rendering his argument somewhat superfluous. 18. One Shri Lakhi Hazarika lodged a complaint dated 20-06-2011 befo re respondent No.2 stating that he was a candidate in the recruitment process fo r the post of Junior Assistant in the District Employment Exchange, North Lakhim pur and had appeared in the viva-voce and skill test. He complained that the Sel ection Committee gave him only one minute to prove his skill in computer test. 19. On calling for the record, it transpired that out of the candida tes who had appeared in the written test, four were selected for the interview. The marks obtained by the four selected candidates in the written test are as un der :- (1) (2) (3) (4) Shri Lakhi Hazarika Shri Sousthav Jyoti Changmai Shri Budha Deep Phukan Smti. Lakhimi Dutta - - - 57 - 82 67.5 57 20. ur candidates out of 10 are as under :- In the computer / type test, the marks obtained by the above fo (1) (2) (3) (4) Shri Lakhi Hazarika Shri Sousthav Jyoti Changmai Shri Budha Deep Phukan Smti. Lakhimi Dutta - - - 01 - 02 10 01 In the viva-voce, all the five members of the Selection Committe 21. e gave marks as under:- 1. 2. Shri Lakhi Hazarika Shri Sousthav Jyoti Changmai 1 3. 4. Shri Budha Deep Phukan Smti. Lakhimi Dutta 2 1 1 10 2 1 1 10 2 1 1 10 1 2 1 10 1 2 10 22. The way marks have been allotted by the members of the Selection Committee as noticed above, it would naturally raise serious apprehension in th e minds of the appointing authority about the fairness of the selection process. In such circumstances, the appointing authority i.e. respondent No.2 issued dir ection dated 29-10-2011 to the respondent No.4 to re-conduct the computer / typi ng test of all the four candidates simultaneously in presence of an observer dep uted by Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur and thereafter to hold viva-voce. In the circumstances as noticed above, this Court is of the cons 23. idered opinion that the view taken by the appointing authority is a reasonable v iew. Intervention by the respondent No.2 appears to be justified. Public trust a nd confidence in the fairness and impartiality of selection is the essence of th e selection process for recruitment to public employment. In such matters, publi c perception of the fairness and impartiality in the selection process is crucia l. Therefore, decision of respondent No.2 appears to be in consonance with such objective. No case for interference is made out. Respondent No.4 shall now 24. re-conduct the computer / typing test of all the four candidates simultaneously in presence of an observer deputed from the office of Deputy Commissioner, North Lakhimpur and thereafter hold viva-voce of the said candidates. The said exerci se shall be carried out within a period of 8 weeks from today. 25. ed. Subject to the observations made above, writ petition is dismiss 26. However, there shall be no order as to cost.