High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 9248/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. U. K. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Chak raborty, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Also heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for respondent N o. 3 and Mr. P. P. Baruah, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Matter relates to selection and appointment to the post of Principal in Bikali College, Dhupdhara in the district of Goalpara (Assam). At the relevant point of time, the college was under the deficit system of grant s-in-aid. Presently, it is a provincialized college. An advertisement was issued on 26.06.2004 for filling up the vacant post of Principal of Bikali College. An Interview Board was constituted for conducti ng the interview. Six candidates appeared before the Interview Board on 26.09.20 04 and out of them, three candidates were short listed. Respondent No. 5 was pla ced at Serial No. 1 whereas one Dr. Ahijul Sheikh was placed at Serial No. 2 and petitioner was placed at Serial No. 3. Governing Body adopted resolution dated 28.10.2004 to appoint respondent No. 5 as the Principal. Director of Higher Education, Assam granted prior appro val to the appointment of respondent No. 5 on 30.10.2004 and formal approval was granted on 02.11.2004. Since then respondent No. 5 is serving as Principal of t he Bikali College. Petitioner, in his reply affidavit, has furnished the total marks obtain ed by the three selected candidates based on calculation of marks awarded by the individual members of the Interview Board (Annexure-D series to the affidavit f iled by respondent No. 2). The marks obtained by the three selected candidates a re as under:- Sl. No. Name of the candidate 1. 2. 3. Dr. Malini Rava (Respondent No. 5) Dr. A. Sheikh 357 Dr. Minati Choudhury (Petitioner) Total marks 358 349
Legal Reasoning
Referring to the calculation of marks by one member of the Interview Boa rd, namely, Sri Jognarayan Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits th at though respondent No. 5 has been awarded 61 marks, it ought to have been 59 m arks, in which case the total marks secured by the respondent No. 5 would stand decreased by 2 marks, which would get reduced to 356 marks, making her the secon d candidate below Dr. A. Sheikh with 357 marks. He has also referred to other gr ievances of the petitioner regarding allotment of lesser marks under the heading s Teaching Experience, Extra Curricular Activities, Research Publications and Ad ministrative Experience. On the other hand, higher marks were undeservingly give n to the respondent No. 5 under the headings Teaching Experience and Research Pu blications. He would contend that if the marks awarded are rationalized, it woul d lead to a situation where petitioner would be placed at Serial No. 1 amongst t he short listed candidates. Learned departmental counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for th e college fairly accept the arithmetical mistake made in the calculation of mark s of respondent No. 5 by Sri Jognarayan Pathak, a member of the Interview Board which led to allotment of 2 additional marks to respondent No. 5. However, in re spect of other contentions of the petitioner, those have been disputed by the le arned counsel. Mr. P. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the Selection/Interview Bo ard has not been made a party respondent in the proceeding. In the absence of th e Selection/Interview Board, no conclusive adjudication and decision can be reac hed in the present proceeding. He also submits that petitioner is questioning th e award of marks by the Selection Board, which course of action is not permissib le. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Ho n’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs Dr. B. S. Mahajan reported in AIR 1990 SC 434 to contend that the High Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Board. However, he also fairly admits the cal culation error made by one of the members of the Interview Board as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. Submissions made by the learned counsel have been considered. At the outset, the marks awarded by Sri Jognarayan Pathak, one of the me mbers of the Interview Board, to respondent No. 5 may be looked into:- Name of the candidate Academic Qualification experience Interview Administrative experience Total HSLC I-10 II-5 III-3 Remarks PU/HS -10 -5 -3 PG 10+5(GM) 7(55-59) 5-(50-54) M. Phil 5 Research Publication Extra curricular activities Teaching Degree 10 5 3 Ph.D 10 5 5 10 1 Dr. Malina Rabha x 8 5 5 5 15 3 10 5 61 5 1st 3 5 10 5 A perusal of the marks so awarded would clearly indicate that there was a mistake in the final tally. Instead of 61, the total marks should have been 59 . This error in the tally of marks would have a bearing on the final marks secur ed by the short listed candidates as that would lower the total marks of respond ent No. 5 to 356, which would be lesser than the total marks obtained by Dr. A. Sheikh (357). However, Dr. A. Sheikh is not a party before the Court. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merit, Court is of the view that the award of marks by the members of the Interview Board to ea ch of the three short listed candidates under various heads should be re-examine d by the Director of Higher Education, Assam as per the guidelines in force and, thereafter, he should make a fresh assessment/calculation of marks. Based on th e aforesaid, he shall pass a fresh speaking order with intimation to all concern ed. Ordered accordingly. Director of Higher Education, Assam shall carry out the above exercise w ithin a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Appointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal of Bikali College would abi de by such order that may be passed by the Director.