High Court · 2009

5. It is also contended by Mr. Goswami that the candidature of the writ pet itioner is far superior to the selected candidate (respondent No.3) and as such the selection of respondent No.3 cannot be said to be justified and accordingly it is submitted that the appointment of respondent No. 3 to the post of Treasure r in the Gauhati University should be set aside.

6. Mr. L.P. Sarma, the learned counsel for the University submits that in p ursuant to the advertisement dated 20.8.08, 9 applications were received and aft er scrutiny of the applications, only 4 candidates were found to have been eligi ble to sit for the selection. Accordingly call letters were issued to 4 of the 9 applicants, scheduling the interview on 10.12.08. Of these four, 3 candidates p articipated in the selection process which was conducted by a high level Selecti on Committee constituted for the purpose and on the basis of their recommendatio n, offer of appointment dated 23.1.09 was issued to Bishnu Pada Chakraborty. It is also submitted that only because of the interim order passed by this Court on

16.2.09, the appointee has not so far joined in the post.

7. Defending the recruitment process and the selection Mr. Sarma submits th at, the request of the writ petitioner to defer the scheduled interview could n ot be acceded by the University inasmuch as the request for presence of the Memb ers of the Selection Committee on the scheduled date of interview was already is sued on 28.11.08, before the petitioner’s application (dated 5.12.08) was receiv ed by the Gauhati University. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma contends that the writ peti tioner cannot have a grievance against the selection process, merely because his request for deferment of viva voce test could not be acceded to by the Universi ty.

8. The learned counsel further submits that the Gauhati University had alre ady filed a Misc. Application for vacating the interim order dated 16.2.09 passe d in Misc. Case No. 366/09, as the non-appointment of the Treasurer has led to s erious administrative difficulties for the University as the post of Treasurer i s currently being manned by a reluctant Professor of the Commerce Deptt. who is having to discharge the duties of Treasurer of the University, in the absence of a Treasurer. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 217/09 and W.P.(C) 1187/09, T. Hussain, h 9. ad offered his candidature for the post of Treasurer advertised by the Gauhati U niversity and challenged the selection process leading to selection of Bishnu Pa da Chakraborty to the said post on the ground that the candidature of the writ p etitioner was wrongly not considered eligible. Accordingly the petitioner throug h these two petitions, had sought direction for, inter alia, setting aside the s election and the appointment given in pursuant to the selection and also for a f urther direction to hold a fresh interview by allowing participation of the writ petitioner, in such fresh interview.

9.1 Mr. S. Haque, the learned counsel who appears for candidate Tabzul Huss ain submits that the University authorities had wrongly considered his candidatu re to be invalid and claims that the Gauhati University deliberately kept him ou t of the selection process and accordingly it is submitted that the recruitment process is vitiated in law and there should be a direction for holding a fresh s election. As regards the candidature of Tabzul Hussain, whose candidature was not 10. found to be valid, Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned counsel points out that it was stipul ated in the advertisement that those who are in employment should send their app lications through proper channel or may submit a No Objection Certificate from t heir employer. As Tabzul Hussain at the time of application was employed as Acco unts Officer in the Finance (Estt-B) Department, Govt. of Assam he ought to have submitted a No Objection Certificate from the employer and in the absence of su ch certificate, his candidature could not be considered to be valid, in terms of the stipulation made in the advertisement dated 20.8.08.

11. From the contention of the learned counsels, it appears that the challen ge to the recruitment process is made on three counts. Firstly, Tabzul Hussain was not allowed to participate in the selection process as his candidature is fo und to be invalid. Secondly, the selected candidate did not fulfill the qualific ation prescribed in the advertisement and thirdly, the request for the deferment of the scheduled viva voce test made by the candidate G.C. Likharu, was not acc eded to, by the University.

12. As regards the rejection of the candidature of Tabzul Hussain, it seems that although he was employed with the Govt. of Assam, he had not made the appli cation through proper channel, nor he had produced the NOC of his employer. Unde r such circumstances, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner Tabzul Hussain had offered a valid candidature for being allowed to participate in the recruitm ent process and under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the U niversity authorities were within its right to reject the candidature of the wri t petitioner Tabzul Hussain.

13. It is also seen that the petitioner G.C. Likharu, although was called fo r the viva voce test scheduled on 10.12.08 had failed to appear before the Selec tion Board on that day. Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel submits that th e absence of the writ petitioner was on account of the injury suffered by him in a road accident, a few days prior to the scheduled interview and therefore a re quest was made to defer the interview. But the University authorities by not acc eding to the request for deferring the selection process, has caused serious pre judice to the petitioner and therefore the selection process itself should be de clared to have been vitiated in law.

14. On this issue, I find that even before the request for deferment of the interview was received by the G.U., the letters to the Members of the Selection Committee were already issued on 28.11.08. Therefore, it may not have been feasi ble for the University to defer the interview to another date. Under such circum stances, I am of the considered opinion that the selection process could not be said to be vitiated for not acceding to the request for deferment of the selecti on process, at the instance of a candidate who was incapacitated to participate in the interview, because he was injured in a road accident.

15. It is unfortunate that the writ petitioner could not participate in the selection process but it cannot be said that the University authorities were und er an obligation, much less a legally enforceable obligation, to defer the proce ss at the request of a candidate who suffered some incapacity for appearing at t he scheduled date of interview. In a selection process several persons are invol ved and various arrangements have to be made for the recruitment process well ah ead of the actual date of selection and it cannot be expected that the G.U. shou ld reschedule the selection date suit the convenience of an individual candidate . Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the University and again st the writ petitioner G.C. Likharu.

16. To adjudicate on the main ground urged by the writ petitioners regarding the absence of requisite experience by the selected candidate Bishnu Pada Chakr aborty, I find that in the advertisement it is indicated that, candidates with p rofessional qualification from the Institute of Cost and Work Accountants of Ind ia (ACA/AFA) with 10 years of experience at Management level in Finance and Acco unts, are eligible to offer their candidature.

16.1 Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel points out for the records that the respondent No. 3 has the following experience : a) Worked as Treasurer in Gauhati University w.e.f. 18.6.04 to 4.8.08 b) Worked as Deputy General Manager, Finance in Brahmaputra Valley Fertiliz er Corpn. Ltd. w.e.f. 5.8.08 till date of interview (10.12.08) c) Practicing Cost Accountant w.e.f. 1.7.90 to 17.6.04. d) Worked as Junior in-charge in P.K. Roy & Company, Chartered Accountant, Jorha t w.e.f. 1.11.89 to 30.6.90. e) Worked as Accounts Officer in Dehingeapar Tea Estate, Mariani w.e.f. 8.7.86 t o 31.10.89.

16.2 From the above notings of experience of the respondent No.3, the experie nces while he served as (a) Treasurer of the Gauhati University for about 4 year s 2 months between 16.6.04 to 4.8.08; (b) for about 5 months when he worked as D eputy General Manager between 5.8.08 to 10.12.08 and also (e) for about 3 years 3 months when he worked as Accounts Officer in Dehingeapar Tea Estate from 8.7.8 6 to 30.10.89 can be construed as relevant experience without any dispute, as th e writ petitioner does not contest this position. But these add up a little over 7 years 6 months of Management level experience. Therefore unless the experience against column (d) between 1.7.90 to 17. 16.3 6.03 that the respondent No.3 gathered while he was practicing as Cost Accountan t is taken into account he could not be considered to fulfill the requirement of 10 years experience at Management Level in Finance and Account.

17. Mr. L.P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the University submits tha t while practicing as a Cost Accountant for 14 years between 1.7.90 to 16.6.04, the respondent No.3 was responsible for various professional responsibilities of a Cost Accountant. The works of a practicing Cost Accountant was considered by the University to be essential management service, where various aspects of an o rganization, pertaining to decisions in managerial level i.e. (i) stabilizing bu dgets and standards; (ii) assessing operational efficiency and the effectiveness of production and service management; (iii) identifying accountability for prof it variance; (iv) designing and implementing effective management information an d control system; (v) planning costing systems and methods; (vi) inventory contr ol incorporating mathematical models; (vii) investment analysis, project managem ent; (viii) internal audit, cost audit; (ix) diagnosis in case of sick industrie s; (x) fund management; (xi) pricing planning; (xii) interpreting information an d data related to business activities, which are akin to Management level activi ties. The University authorities considered the above experience of the responde nt No.3 to be adequate and suitable in terms of the advertisement for selecting him for the post of Treasurer. It is further submitted by Mr. L.P. Sarma, that the respondent No.3 has 18. satisfactorily discharged the functions of the Treasurer of the University for o ver 4 years between 2004 to 2008 and considering his additional exposure and exp erience at various Management level in finance and Accounts, the selecting autho rities has rightly considered the candidature of respondent No.3 to be adequate, in terms of the conditions prescribed in the advertisement and accordingly the recruitment process and the selection of respondent No.3 is liable to be approve d by this Court.

19. I find that the selected candidate had exposure of 7 years 6 months at M anagement level of 3 organizations when he served as the Treasurer of the Gauhat i University, as the Deputy General Manager of a Public Sector Undertaking and a s an Accounts Officer of a Tea Estate.

19.1 The additional 14 years of experience as a practicing Cost Accountant, w here the respondent No.3 had experience of various works pertaining to Managemen t Services, Cost certification work, preparation of project report for Bank Fina nce and so on, cannot in my view, be disregarded as works of subordinate nature, merely because they were rendered while the respondent No. 3 was practicing ind ependently as a Cost Accountant.

19.2 From the nature of works discharged by a practicing Cost Accountant, it cannot be said that the said practicing experience of 14 years should not at all be counted to make good the balance 2 1/2 years of experience of the kind, pres cribed in the advertisement dated 20.8.08. The selecting authority took this int o consideration and I don’t consider it to be unreasonable or irrational. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that selection of respondent No. 3 was proper and should not be held to be illegal on the ground of absence of ad equate experience.

20. Ms. M. Hazarika, learned senior counsel appearing for the selected cand idate(respondent No.3) submits that amongst all the candidates who participated in the selection process, the candidature of respondent No.3 was found to be the best by the Selection Body. As per the recommendation made by the Selection Com mittee, an offer of appointment dated 23.1.09 has been given to the respondent N o.3. It is further submitted by Ms. Hazarika that in pursuant to the offer of ap pointment, the respondent No.3 has resigned from his regular post of Deputy Gene ral Manager (Finance), Brahmaputra Valley Fertilizer Corporation Limited and it is submitted that serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.3, if t his Court interferes with the selection process at the instance of the candidate s, who had not even participated in the selection process and whose candidature was found to be invalid.

21. It must also be borne in mind that when selection to posts within academ ic Institutions are to be made, it is for the University authorities to prescrib e the norms for making appointment and also to make selection, keeping in mind t he requirement of the job in question. When a Selection Board of five members, c onstituted by a Vice Chancellor, a former Vice Chancellor of a Central Universit y, a former Professor and like, presumption of bonafide selection is reasonable and interference without strong reasons, with the recommendation of such a high powered; Selection Board would not be justified. It may not also be out of place to note that, no mala fide is alleged in the selection process, by any of the w rit petitioners.

22. I am also of the considered opinion that a challenge to the recruitment process should not be entertained at the instance of writ petitioners, who under different circumstances, did not even participate in the selection.

23. I find that the respondent No. 3 possesses all the qualifications for be ing selected to the post of Treasurer, as he has adequate experience at Manageme nt level in Finance and Accounts.

24. Taking all the above circumstances into account, I find no justification to interfere with the selection of respondent No.3 for the post of Treasurer in Gauhati University. Accordingly, these writ petitions are found to be without a ny legal merit and the same are therefore dismissed. Interim orders passed by th is Court also accordingly stands recalled.

25. The petitions stand disposed off without any order on cost.