Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 801 (GAU)

Ratul Sarma and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.

2007-12-07

B.P.KATAKEY, J.CHELAMESWAR

body2007
B.P. Katakey, J:- 1. The appellants along with others filed Writ Petition (C) No. 34787 2007 challenging the notice dated 1.7.2007 issued by the Director of Land Records and Survey, Assam, calling 560 candidates for viva voce test for selection to undergo six months training course of survey against 160 seats available at Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre and also praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow them to participate in the said test pursuant to their selection in the written test conducted in terms of the advertisement dated 4.11.2006, contending, inter alia, that pursuant to the said advertisement dated 4.11.2006 they applied and appeared in the written test and obtained minimum qualifying mark of 40 per cent in such written examination but they have not been called for viva voce test though the Assam Survey and Settlement Centre Rules, 1992 ('the 1992 Rules') requires conducting viva voce test of all the candidates, who secured 40 per cent of marks in the written test. The said writ petition was contested by the respondents herein, by filling affidavit-in-opposition and contending, inter alia, that securing 40 per cent marks in the written test being merely a minimum qualification for eligibility into appear in the viva voce test and rule 23 of the 1992 Rules having authorized the Director to decide the manner of selection of candidates, having due regard to the marks obtained in the written test, a candidate, who secured 40 per cent of marks in the written test cannot as a matter of right claim to be called for viva voce test. It has further been contended that as against 160 seats available in the training centre for which the advertisement dated 4.11.2006 was issued for selection of candidate, 12,000 (twelve thousand) candidates had secured 40 per cent and more marks in the written test, the authority has decided to restrict the number of the candidate to be called for the viva voce test to three times to the number of seats available and accordingly 560 candidates in order of their merit, position in the written test were called for viva voce test. 2. The said writ petition was heard and decided by the learned Single Judge along with other writ petitions raising the similar question, vide common judgment and order dated 20.8.2007 dismissing the writ petitions and, hence, the present appeal. 3. 2. The said writ petition was heard and decided by the learned Single Judge along with other writ petitions raising the similar question, vide common judgment and order dated 20.8.2007 dismissing the writ petitions and, hence, the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellants referring to rule 23 of the 1992 Rules has contended that since it provides that a candidate, who obtained 40 per cent of marks in the written test is qualified for selection for undergoing the training course, the authority is bound to call all those candidates, who secured such minimum qualifying marks in the written test, for the viva voce test and in the instant case, the Director of Land Records and Survey by the impugned notification dated 1.7.2007 has called only 560 candidates for the viva voce test and thereby violates the provision in rule 23 of the 1992 Rules. Mr. Baruah, during the course of arguments, however, submits that the persons, who have been called for viva voce test vide notice dated 1,7.2007 secured more marks than the petitioners in the written examination and it is not the allegation of the petitioners that while selecting 560 candidates, the authority did not adhere to inter se merit of the candidates in the written examination. 5. Mr. Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, referring to the provision of rule 23 of the 1992 Rules has submitted that the Director has been given the power to decide the number of candidates to be selected for admission to the centre for the course and also the manner in which they are to be selected after holding the written examination and on the basis of the result of such examination and in the instant case, the number of candidates, who secured 40 per cent and more marks being abnormally large, i.e. 12,000, against 160 seats available in the training centre, the competent authority has decided to restrict the number of candidates to call for viva voce test strictly on the basis of the merit, position in the written test and, therefore, no grievance can be raised by the appellants in that regard. It has further been submitted that rule 23, which prescribed the minimum qualifying marks at 40 per cent in the written examination, is only for eligibility of the candidate to appear at the viva voce test and obtaining such minimum qualifying marks does not by itself entitled a candidate to insist that he should be called for viva voce test. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the persons, who were called for viva voce test by notice dated 1.7.2007 impugned in the writ petition secured more marks than the appellants in the written examination and they were selected for the viva voce test strictly on the basis of their merit position in the written test and also keeping in view the policy of reservation. The only contention of the appellants is that rule 23 having fixed the minimum qualifying marks to be obtained by a candidate, which is 40 per cent, all candidates securing 40 per cent of marks have to be called for the viva voce test. Such contention has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. 7. Rule 23 of the 1992 Rules provides for holding the written test for the purpose of selection of candidates for undergoing the training course and also fixed the minimum marks to be obtained in such written test to become eligible for appearing at the viva voce test. The said rule also authorizes the Director to decide the number of candidates to be selected for admission to the Centre for the course and the manner in which they are to be selected having due regard to the merit position in the written test subject, of course, to the policy of reservation. In the instant case, pursuant to the advertisement dated 4.11.2006 issued by the Director a written test was conducted wherein the appellants appeared. Altogether 12,000 candidates including the appellants secured the minimum qualifying marks of 40 per cent in such written test. In the instant case, pursuant to the advertisement dated 4.11.2006 issued by the Director a written test was conducted wherein the appellants appeared. Altogether 12,000 candidates including the appellants secured the minimum qualifying marks of 40 per cent in such written test. The authority having regard to the large number of candidates qualified in the written test and also the number of seats available in the training centre (160) has decided to restrict the number of candidates to be called for viva voce test to three times to the number of seats available and accordingly, 560 candidates were called for viva voce test strictly in terms of their merit position in the written test and also keeping in view the reservation policy. Such course of action on the part of the competent authority cannot be termed as arbitrary and irrational and is not violative of rule 23 of the 1992 Rules. The qualifying marks of 40 per cent in the written test stipulated in rule 23 of the 1992 Rules is for eligibility to appear at the viva voce test and it would not by itself entitle a candidate to insist that he should be called for the viva voce test. The authority keeping in view the number of seats available and also the number of candidates qualified in the written test can restrict the number of candidates to be called for viva voce test as has been done in the instant case, which is also permissible under rule 23 of the 1992 Rules. 8. That being the position, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition refusing to grant relief as prayed for. In view of the above, the appeal fails and dismissed. No cost.