High Court · 2012

We have heard Mr S Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr SK M edhi, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. We have heard as well Mr PS Deka, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Stat e. According to the petitioner, he had been serving as a Driver in the afor ementioned establishment since 1992 on ad-hoc basis from time to time and was ev entually terminated by order dated 17.4.96. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court with WP(C) 1406/99 which stood disposed of on 24.3.99 with a direction to consider his case with due weightage for his past services as and when a regular process of selection was initiated for appointment to the said post. In an exer cise for appointment to the post of Peon in the year 2005 though he offered his candidature, he not having been called for the interview, he returned to this Co urt with WP(C) 3177/2005. The said process also did not yield any result for him . He approached this Court once again with WP(C) 3610/2011 alleging illegalities and irregularities in the matter of appointments to the above establishment. Th is petition was disposed of on 29.7.2011 with a direction to the District & Sess ions Judge, Hailakandi and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi to examine as t o whether the claim with regard to the availability of vacancy in the post of Pe on/ Driver as made by him was correct and, if so, to fill up the same through a public participatory process. It was observed further that if in the process so initiated the petitioner offered his candidature, he would be allowed to partici pate if construed to be eligible therefor and in that eventuality due weightage would be given to him for the past services while assessing his suitability. It was thereafter that an advertisement was published on 22.12.2011 for one post of Driver against which the petitioner responded. Though he was over aged, he appl ied for relaxation of age. However, as the concerned authorities decided to proc eed with the selection process without disposing of his representation to the ab ove effect, he approached this Court with the instant proceeding. By order dated 5.4.2012, while issuing notice, this Court directed the r espondents to allow him to appear in the selection scheduled to be held on 6.4.2 012. The petitioner accordingly participated in the process being permitted to d o so by the concerned respondent authorities and eventually Sri Shankar Kanti De b was selected for the post. The learned counsel for the petitioner having urged that the respondent authorities were obliged, in the face of the direction contained in the order da ted 29.7.2011 passed in WP(C) 3610/2011, to accord due weighatge to his past ser vices while evaluating his suitability, Mr Medhi sought for time to produce the records and being permitted thereafter to file affidavit, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have laid their pleaded stand through their counter dated 10.8.2012. According to these respondents, in deference to the direction of this Co urt due weightage to the past services of the petitioner had been accorded to hi m and on a comparative assessment of suitability, Sri Shankar Kanti Deb who had secured 66 marks against 39 secured by the petitioner, was selected as the first nominee. The answering respondents have pleaded further that the past services of the petitioner had been rendered for the following periods: i) 22.4.1992 to 31.7.1992 (as Driver in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Hailakandi) 3 months 8 days - ii) 26.7.1994 to 12.4.1996 - 1 year 9 months (in the office of the CJM, Hailakand) __________________________ Total - 2 years. They highlighted as well that the past services of the petitioner had en ded in the year 1996 which is about 16 years now in the past. Whereas Mr Banik has reiterated that the affidavit does not disclose wit h a semblance of clarity as to the aspects examined by the respondent authoritie s to ascertain the quality of the petitioner’s past services and the weightage g ranted on the basis thereof and, thus, the selection is a mockery of the process undertaken, Mr Medhi on the basis of the official records has maintained that i t would be apparent therefrom that due weightage to the past services of the pet itioner had been accorded to him and as inspite thereof he could not make the ma rk, in the interest of excellence in service, he was not selected. We have duly considered the rival pleadings as well as the arguments adv anced. That the petitioner in terms of the order dated 5.4.2012 of this Court wa s allowed to participate in the process is an admitted fact. That the direction of this Court to accord due weightage to the past services of the petitioner was in the knowledge of the District & Sessions Judge, Hailakandi is also apparent from the endorsement made by that authority on 6.4.2012 on the application submi tted by him seeking permission to participate in the interview on the basis of t he aforementioned order dated 5.4.2012. According to the modalities drawn by the Selection Board, the candidates were re quired to undergo a driving test followed by signal/ technical test, whereafter, they were required to appear in viva-voce. The records of the selection reveal that the driving test was conducted under the supervision of the Motor Vehicle I nspector deputed by the District Transport Officer, Hailakandi in response to th e request of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hailakandi who incidentally was the Chairman of the Selection Board. This was followed by the signal test an d the viva voce in the order as decided by the Selection Board. The table prepar ed on the basis of the aggregate marks scored by the candidates on the three seg ments of the evaluation discloses that the first nominee Sri Shankar Kanti Deb h ad secured 66 marks and the petitioner 39 marks. He in fact was adjudged to be 2 1st in order of merit/ preference. The averments made in the affidavit of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to th e effect that the past services of the petitioner was for about two years and, t hat too, culminated in the year 1996 and that on being given due weightage there to he had scored 39 marks have been duly affirmed by the District & Sessions Jud ge, Hailakandi who, to reiterate, was the Chairman of the Selection Board. The a ffidavit discloses as well that the petitioner had scored 39 marks in comparison to 66 marks by the first nominee who was selected for the post. Prima facie, th erefore, there is nothing to demonstrate that the respondents had compromised wi th the quality or suitability of the incumbent for the post involved. Though Mr Banik has emphatically urged that the affidavit as well as the records are cagey and do not disclose in clear terms the detailed steps taken b y the concerned respondents to ascertain the quality of the petitioner’s past se rvices and the weightage therefor, we are constrained to hold, having regard to the institution holding the selection and the affidavit filed on this aspect by the District & Sessions Judge, Hailakandi, that it would be too presumptive on o ur part to sustain this plea taken on behalf of the petitioner suggesting in the negative. On a cumulative consideration of the affidavit as well as the materials on record, we are of the view that the selection does not suffer from any infirm ity to render it non-est or illegal. We are satisfied, as contended before us, t hat the concerned respondents had accorded due weightage to the past services of the petitioner as ordered by this Court in WP(C) No. 3610/2011. In the above view of the matter, the petition lacks in merit and is dism issed. No costs. The records of the selection proceedings be returned to the learned Stan ding Counsel, Gauhati High Court.