High Court · 2009

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr BD Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 536 8/2008 and Mr N Dutta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 51 72/2008. Also heard Mr KN Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam. Read and considered the affidavit filed by the Assam Public Service Comm ission along with the synopsis prepared delineating the facts that emanate from the records of the selection proceeding which has been placed before the Court. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 5368/2008 belongs to the Other Backward Clas ses whereas the petitioner in the other writ petition is a general category cand idate. Both the petitioners were aspirants in the Combined Competitive Examinati on, 2006 for selection and appointment to different posts in the Assam Civil Ser vice as well as in other allied services. Both the petitioners have not been cal led for the viva-voce test. As there is provision for reservation of the posts a dvertised to the extent of 30% for female candidates under the relevant statute, the writ petitions in question have been filed on the ground that while prepari ng the list of selected candidates for the viva-voce test the rule of four times the number of posts had been complied without having regard to the marks secure d by the female candidates. In the process, according to the petitioners, male c andidates who had secured less marks than them have been called for the intervie w and the petitioners have been kept out of the aforesaid segment of the selecti on. The pleadings of the petitioners having made out a prima facie case, bot h the writ petitions were entertained and the State as well as the Assam Public Service Commission were asked by the Court to file their respective responses. A ccordingly, the Assam Public Service Commission has filed a detailed affidavit i n the matter. A reading of the affidavit filed by the Assam Public Service Commission along with the synopsis of the facts revealed by the records of the selection pr ocess indicate that the Public Service Commission while preparing the list of ca ndidates to be called for the interview had segregated the female candidates int o a separate compartment and had called four times the number of female candidat es as against the posts available for them under the reservation policy. The sai d exercise was undertaken without any reference to the marks secured by the fema le candidates and their inter-se merit position as against their male counterpar ts. Accordingly, in each of the categories i.e. general, OBC, MOBC, ST(P), ST(H) and SC, female candidates who where otherwise eligible to be called for the int erview de hors the reservation provided to them have been so called for the inte rview on the basis of the reservation provided which had eventually resulted in some eligible female candidates being excluded from the list of candidates calle d for the interview. The exercise performed in the above manner had also led to certain ineligible male candidates being called for the interview. In the affida vit filed and at the Bar it has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate Gen eral that the Assam Public Service Commission admits the aforesaid mistake and h as in fact prepared a revised list of 106 candidates who will now be called for the interview. The revised list of candidates will be published shortly and indi vidual call letters will also be issued to all such candidates once the present proceedings are finalized by the Court. The Court has taken note of the stand taken by the Public Service Commis sion. The mistake that has occurred leading to certain anomalies in the list of candidates called for the interview appears to have occurred on account of a wro ng perception of the Public Service Commission with regard to the manner in whic h the list of candidates to be called for the interview was required to be worke d out. As the Public Service Commission, a constitutional Body, has now admitte d its mistake and seeks permission of the Court to publish the revised list of c andidates, such permission, in the fitness of things, should be granted by the C ourt. The Public Service Commission may now act accordingly. In view of the above, it has become unnecessary for the Court to examine the individual cases of the two petitioners, inasmuch as, if they are found to be eligible in terms of the revised norms and are to be included in the revised list, necessary action will follow. Mr KN Choudhury, learned Addll. Advocate Gen eral has also very fairly submitted that though certain ineligible candidates ha ve been called for the interview on account of the mistake committed, the Assam Public Service Commission will take into account the aforesaid fact while finali zing the final list of candidates. The Assam Public Service Commission is direct ed to act accordingly. The learned counsels for the petitioners have submitted that both the pe titioners have filed separate applications under the provisions of the Right to Information Act seeking information with regard to different facets of their per formance in the competitive examination. However, the requisite information has not been furnished by the Assam Public Service Commission to the petitioners til l date. Mr Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the Publ ic Service Commission is duty bound to furnish the requisite information to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act and that it is on account of heav y pressure of work on the said Body that there has been some delay in furnishing the requisite information to the petitioners. Mr Choudhury has assured the Cour t that the information sought for by the petitioners under the provisions of the Act will now be furnished to them without any delay. The Assam Public Service C ommission, therefore, is further directed to act accordingly. Both the writ petitions shall stand closed in terms of what has been obs erved above.