High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 750/2012 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K.SHARMA The challenge made in this writ petition is the Annexure-9 appointment order app ointing the private respondents to the post of Junior Assistant pursuant to the selection conducted for the purpose. According to the petitioners, the selection was in violation of the Recruitment Rules. It will be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed this w rit petition only after their failure to clear the written test. Be it stated he re that the selection consisted of written test (100 marks); viva voce test (20 marks) and computer test (10 marks). An advertisement dated 13.9.2011 was issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissi oner, Jorhat District, inviting applications for 24 posts of Junior Assistant. I n the advertisement itself, it was indicated that the selection would consist of written test, oral interview and computer test for 100 marks, 20 marks and 10 m arks respectively. In response to the said advertisement the petitioners along w ith others including private respondents offered their candidatures in acceptanc e of which they were called for the written test. While the petitioners could no t qualify in the written test, the private respondents could qualify and accordi ngly had been invited for the oral test and computer test. Pursuant to the said selection they have been appointed. They have already joined their respective po sts and are in service. Mr R Barua, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the selection and a ppointment of the private respondents are bad in law on following counts :- i) As per Rule 6(5) of the Assam Ministerial Establishment Service Rules, 1967 t here is requirement to hold written test comprising of 3 papers i.e. general kno wledge, precise writing and drafting followed by interview for 100 marks. But in the instant case, the respondents conducted the selection for only 100 marks in the written examination and 20 marks in the oral interview.
Legal Reasoning
ii) One of the candidates bearing Roll No. 0652 although was not qualifi ed in the written test but was called for the interview which would go to show t hat the entire selection process was vitiated. (iii) As regards the plea of estoppel raised by the respondents, Mr Barua, learn ed counsel for the petitioner placing reliance of the decision of the Apex Court in M.P. Sugar Mills vs State of U.P. reported in AIR 1979 SCC 621, submits that there cannot be any question of estoppel against law. Mr Barua has also placed reliance of the unreported judgment of this Court dated 26.6.2012 passed in WP(C ) No. 1203/2011 in which holding of the written test comprising of 3 papers of 1 00 marks each was accepted. That was also a selection for Junior Assistant in th e District of Dibrugarh. Countering the above argument, both Mr J Handique, learned State counsel and Mr S Sarma, learned counsel representing the private respondents submit that the pe titioners having participated in the selection process taking a chance for favou rable consideration they are now estopped from making the grievance against the advertisement and selection. They submit that although in the schedule to the af oresaid Rules there is prescription of 300 marks for the written examination and 100 marks for the oral interview but the same being in reference to the syllabu s, the respondents were within its competence and jurisdiction to set the writte n examination paper comprising of 100 marks followed by 20 marks for oral interv iew. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties an d have also gone through the entire materials on record. My conclusion and findi ngs are as follows:- In the advertisement dated 13.9.2011 itself, it was indicated that the written t est would be of 100 marks to be followed by oral interview and computer test of 20 marks and 10 marks respectively. While it is true that in WP(C) No. 1203/2011 disposed of on 26.6.2012 the action of the respondents in holding written test comprising of 3 papers of 100 marks each was not faulted with in reference to th e Rules but the said decision cannot be said to be the law laying down the ratio that in every such selection the written test must comprise of 300 marks. If th e Selection Committee and for that matter the Appointing Authority in its wisdo m holds any selection comprising of 300 marks in the written test, the same can not be faulted with. Similarly, if out of the syllabus the authority decides to hold the written test consisting of 100 marks, the same also cannot be faulted w ith. Rule 6(5) of the aforesaid Rules speaks of making appointment to the post as per the syllabus for the test, as specified in Schedule-1. Schedule-1 of the Rules speaks of the syllabus for the test for direct recruitment indicating general kn owledge, precise writing, drafting etc. It is the said syllabus in reference to which the authority decided to hold the selection consisting of written test (10 0 marks), interview (20 marks and computer test (10 marks). In my considered vie w, no fault can be attributed to the respondents. As regards the inclusion of the name of a failed candidate in the list of succes sful candidates in the written test, it is the definite case of the respondents that the same was by mistake and subsequently his name was deleted. The fact of the matter is that he has not been selected and appointed. As regards the submissions made by Mr Barua, learned counsel for the petitioners that the plea of estoppel is not applicable to the case while there is no dispu te that there cannot be estoppel against law, but in the instant case, the quest ion of estoppel will arise in reference to the participation of the petitioners in the selection. It is only after their failure in the written test and on conc lusion of the selection and appointment, they filed the instant writ petition ma king the challenge to the entire selection. However, there is no challenge to th e advertisement and naturally so when the petitioners had participated in the se lection in response to the said advertisement. For all the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and acco rdingly the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.