Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 264 (GAU)

Lalsanglura v. State of Mizoram

2003-06-20

P.G.AGARWAL

body2003
P.G.AGARWAL, J- Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. N.Sailo, learned Government Advocate for respondents No. 1-3 and Mr. Michael Zothankhuma for private respondents. 2. The petitioner Lalsanglura had participated in a selection process for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police: Assistant Commandant for which a competitive examination was conducted by the Mizoram Public Service Commission(MPSC). The Commission initially made a recommendation of fifteen names against the fifteen vacancies, subsequently the Commission was asked to make recommendation for another vacancy and the name of the petitioner was recommended against sixteenth vacancy. The petitioner has disputed the claim of the respondents as regards the number of vacancies by stating that there were 18 vacancies and due to some mistake, only 15 were defined. The respondents, on the other hand, submits that originally there were 15 vacancies and while the selection was going on , some other vacancies arose and the Commission was requested to make recommendation. We need not enter into the above controversy as the fact remain that as per the merit list, the name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 16 only and hence for the first 15 vacancies, the other respondent's name were recommended and the name of the petitioner was recommended for the 16th vacancy by the Commission. 3. The dispute in this writ petition is in respect of inter-se-seniority amongst the direct recruits of 1996. The petitioner has impleaded 12 selectees as private respondents leaving behind three other appointees, on the ground that they were bound to be senior to the petitioner. 4. Rule 25( 1 )(a) of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1986 is relevant and the original rule reads as follows: "25. Seniority: The Administrator shall prepare a list of members of the service arranged in order of seniority as determined in the manner . specified below:- (i)(a) Persons recruited on the result of the competitive examination in any year shall be ranked inter se in the order of merit in which they are placed at the competitive examination on the result of which they are recruited, those recruited on the basis of a later examination". 5. The said rules were amended in the year 1989 and the amended rules, reads as follows:- "25. 5. The said rules were amended in the year 1989 and the amended rules, reads as follows:- "25. Seniority: The Government shall prepare a list of members of the service arranged in order of seniority as determined in the manner specified below: (l)(a) Persons recruited on the result of competitive examination in any year shall be ranked interse in the order of merit which shall be determined in accordance with the aggregate marks obtained- (i) at the competitive examination; and (ii) in respect of his record in the training college". 6. There is no disputes at the bar that in the year 1996, the amended rules governed the matter. 7. The case of the writ petitioner is that in the competitive examination, he secured 436 marks and accordingly placed at Sl. No. 16 of the merit list but in the training at NEPA, the petitioner secured 1560 marks and thus aggregate of 1995 marks. Hence, he should have been placed at Sl. No. 4 of the seniority list in accordance with the above rules but the respondent authority has placed him at Sl. No. 16 only. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner had not undergone the training alongwith private respondents in the year 1996 as he was appointed about four months subsequent to the appointment of the private respondents. Thus, the private respondents and the other selected candidates had undergone training at the North Eastern Police Academy(NEPA) in the year 1996 whereas the petitioner has undergone training in the next year i.e. in the year 1997. There is no dispute regarding the above factual aspects of the matter. 8. The case of the State respondents is that: "The said 15 officers completed their training in the same year. As for the petitioner, he was appointed to the said post only on 8.8.96 i.e. after 5 months of the recommendations made earlier and as such, he could not attend the basic training in the year 1996 alongwith the private respondents. That he could only attend the basic training in the next year i.e. 1997. As for the petitioner, he was appointed to the said post only on 8.8.96 i.e. after 5 months of the recommendations made earlier and as such, he could not attend the basic training in the year 1996 alongwith the private respondents. That he could only attend the basic training in the next year i.e. 1997. Therefore, the question of comparing the marks obtained in the training with that of the private respondents does not arise as they appeared different examination at different year and also, their entry into the service being in a different year." The private respondents on the other hand pleads as below: "It is humbly submitted that the petitioner who was selected and appointed later than the answering respondents could not attend the training alongwith the private respondents for obvious reasons. The petitioner who undertook the training in the year 1997 was part of a group of four persons which comprised of the petitioner, one another person from Mizoram State and two persons from Tripura State. During the training period of the answering respondents in the year 1996, there was a total number of 24 people, 15 person from Mizoram, 7 persons from Meghalaya and 2 persons from Nagaland, who were competing against each other for marks which included physical examination and written examination. Thus it is quite clear that the standard or marks obtained in training for each successive training period for different groups will be different. The reason being that some groups will have more physical and mental ability than other groups. Secondly, depending upon the size of each successive group, the competition among larger groups for marks will be more competitive and demanding. Thus it would be unfair to compare the marks obtained by the petitioner in his training period against the marks obtained by the answering respondents in the training undergone in the year 1996 comprising 24 individuals." 9. On perusal of the records, we find that the petitioner alongwith the private respondents had appeared together in the competitive examination held in the year 1996 and it satisfied the requirement of sub-clause(l)(a) of rule 25 as quoted above as the word 'any year' has been defined as a Calendar Year. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the word 'any year' does not appear in respect of training college and hence the petitioner is entitled to the benefit. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the word 'any year' does not appear in respect of training college and hence the petitioner is entitled to the benefit. At this stage, we may mention that the petitioner has not impleaded the Mizoram Public Service Commission or the NEPA in this writ petition and this court is not in a position to verify the claim of the petitioner made in para 6 of the writ petition as regards the marks obtained by him are concerned. On perusal of para 6 of the writ petition, we find that except in the case of the petitioner, the standing of the other private respondents, who underwent training, is in-consonance with the standing/marks obtained under the Commission i.e. there is no variation in their position or relative merit. However, the petitioner claimed to have obtained about 400 marks more than the person, just above him, in the competitive examination. 11. Coming back to the rules, the question that is posed is whether the criteria of one “Calendar year” will apply in case of training also i.e. in order to fix up inter-se-seniority, the person concerned must have appeared in the same competitive examination and undergone training together in the same training course. Although the word 'any year' is not specially mentioned in respect of training, it is deemed to exits in order to make the rule workable. When two persons appear in two workable. When two persons appear in two different examination or selection or training, they cannot be compared on the basis of their marks to find out the inter-se-merit of the above persons. For example, a candidate securing 8th position in the year 2000 HSLC Examination cannot be compared with the candidate who has secured 8th position in 2001 examination because the marks obtained in a particular paper or particular examination may differ due to number of para-meters and consideration and they cannot be treated as equal. The trainee, the trainer or examiner were all different in the year 1996 and in the year 1997, although the training course may be the same. The trainee, the trainer or examiner were all different in the year 1996 and in the year 1997, although the training course may be the same. There may be occasions when a particular candidate on being selected by the Commission may not be able to undertake the training in that year for his own fault or for the latches of others, in that case, if he is allowed to take the benefit or carry his benefit to the next year, it will amount to treating unequal as equal and if the benefit is extended to such person, some selected candidate may take advantage of the situation and in order to avoid tough competition, he may postpone the training to the subsequent year. 12. There is another aspect of the matter, which needs attention of Rule Makers. If the figures quoted by the petitioner are correct, the total marks for Competitive Examination will be just 1/3rd of the total marks for training, which in practice will mean that the marks or position obtained in Competitive Examination will be of not much use for fixation of inter-se-seniority and much will depend on the marks to be obtained in the training. Will it be fair to the selectees? Will they not be at the mercy of Training School authorities? It may open floodgates for all sorts of manoeuvering, which may not prove healthy sign. The situation will be like allotting more marks for viva voce, which has been deprecated by the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case. In the case of Munindra Kumar -v- Rajiv Govil, AIR 1991 SC 1607 , the Apex Court observed that marks allotted to interview should not exceed 15% of total marks. Although this is not a case of initial appointment, the inter-se-seniority of direct' recruits have also far reaching repercussion it may make or relegate career of a selectee. Hence, allotment of 300% higher marks for training i.e. three times of the marks for competitive examination is highly excessive and arbitrary. 13. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot be equated with the private respondents for fixing of inter-se-seniority on the basis of the training, as he had not undergone the training alongwith the private respondents. 14. The writ petitioner was, therefore, rightly placed below the private respondents | and we find no merit in this writ petition. 15. This writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.