Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 142 (GAU)

Dilip Baruah and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.

2008-02-18

AMITAVA ROY

body2008
1. All these petitions raise a common challenge to the ongoing selection process for appointment to the post of Surveillance Workers and Basic Health Workers in the establishment under the Directorate of Health Services, Assam. The parties having exchanged their pleadings were heard at the motion/admission stage and the petitions are hereby being disposed of by this common order. 2. I have heard Mr. B.C. Das, senior advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) 2289/07, Mr. M. Bhuiyan and Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, advocates for the petitioners in WP(C) 4634/07 and WP(C) 4901/07 respectively, Mr. A. Rajkhowa, advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) 5619/07 and WP(C) 6117/07, Mr. A.K. Gogoi, Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) 5587/07 and Mr. G. Uzir, Advocate for the petitioner in WP(C) 6276/ 07. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam, representing the official respondents in all the petitions. 3. The impugned process set in motion by the advertisement dated 3.2.2007 for filling up 467 posts of Surveillance Workers and 68 posts of Basic Health Workers under the establishment of Directorate of Health Services, Assam, noticeably had not been stunted by this court and is in progress as on date. The questions of law raised for adjudication though alike, the foundational facts in the petitions marginally differ and expedient it would be to record the same petition wise. WP(C) 4634/07 4. The pleaded version of the petitioners is that they had passed only High School Leaving Certificate Examination ('the H.S.L.C.') under the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, and claim to have worked as Seasonal Field Workers under the various schemes pertaining to malaria eradication sponsored by the Central Government. They claim to be eligible academically and otherwise to compete for the post of Surveillance Worker and Basic Health Workers, Grade III posts under the Directorate of Health Services, Assam. They have referred to a letter No. V.108/Estt./05/ll,287 dated 17.12.2005 issued from the Office of the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, Guwahati, indicating that for a candidate to be appointed to the said posts, he/she is required to pass the HSLC Examination or any examination equivalent thereto. The State respondents having published an advertisement in the issue dated 3.2.2007 of the daily "Dainik Asom" inviting candidature for 464 posts of Surveillance Worker CSW) and 68 posts of Basic Health Worker ('BHW'), the petitioners sought to apply therefor. The State respondents having published an advertisement in the issue dated 3.2.2007 of the daily "Dainik Asom" inviting candidature for 464 posts of Surveillance Worker CSW) and 68 posts of Basic Health Worker ('BHW'), the petitioners sought to apply therefor. The advertisement, however, mentioned the qualifying academic qualification to be a pass in Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination ('H.S.S.L.C.'). According to them, though in terms of the letter dated 17.12.2005, they were qualified to apply, they were apprised that they were not so and that their applications in the face of the required conditions of eligibility set out in the advertisement would be rejected in limine. By a corrigendum to the said advertisement published on 7.7.2007, female candidates were also allowed to participate in the process. 5. The petitioners have stated that as the next step in exercise undertaken, call letters were issued to the candidates on 24.7.2007, requiring them to appear in a written test fixed on 26.8.2007. They were thereby asked to bring with them the HSLC admit card in original. The petitioners have alleged that such call letters, however, have also been issued to some of the candidates who had passed only the HSLC examination and to illustrate their assertion they have impleaded respondents 4 to 9. The petitioners thus have assailed the selection process to be vitiated by arbitrariness, non-transparency, hostile discrimination and administrative unfairness. They have contended denial of equal protection of law and opportunity to public employment guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. WP(C) 4901/07 6. The petitioners herein have further averred that prior to the framing of the Assam Vector Borne Disease Control Programme Workers Service Order, 2006 ('the Order 2006'), the prescribed qualification for the post of Surveillance Worker was a pass in H.S.L.C., i.e., Matriculation as is evident from the letter No. V-168/Estt./05/11287 dated 17.12.2005 of the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam. They have insisted that bearing in mind that the job of Surveillance Worker involve spraying of DDT in the malaria infested areas as is performed by the Seasonal Workers for whom the educational qualification prescribed is a pass in Class VIII, the higher qualification prescribed by the Order is arbitrary, illogical and unconstitutional. They are also aggrieved by the framing of the Order 2006 without prior adequate publicity. They are also aggrieved by the framing of the Order 2006 without prior adequate publicity. According to them, in terms of clause 6(1)(iv) thereof the selection is to be made by the Selection Board taking into account the academic record of the candidates and performance and therefore the concept of holding a written examination is repugnant thereto. They have questioned the composition of the Selection Board as well on the ground of induction of some officials of the Assam Electronics Development Corporation Limited ('AMTRON'), being not countenanced by the Order 2006, thus, invalidating the entire selection process. WP(C) 2289/2007 7. The petitioners herein claim to have been appointed as Surveillance Workers on ad hoc basis by the District Malaria Officer, Sonitpur, and that their services were extended from time to time. Though they are all H.S.L.C. pass most of them were engaged as Seasonal Field Workers as well. As the respondent authorities by disregarding their past services and the acquired experience overlooked them for regularization and instead favoured others therewith, some of them approached this court and their writ petitions were disposed of by directing the State authorities to consider their cases for appointment as Surveillance Worker/Seasonal Field Worker by extending due weightage to their experience and if necessary by relaxing their age. The respondent authorities when approached by the petitioners with the copies of the orders of this court disposed of their representations with the observation that their cases would be considered along with the others similarly situated when a selection process under the relevant rules would be initiated for induction to the said post. 8. An advertisement was thereafter published on 21.12.2005 whereby applications were invited from candidates registered with the concerned District Employment Exchanges for filling up vacant Grade III and Grade IV posts in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam ('the Department'). The petitioners though inclined to apply having come to learn that the names of the overaged candidates would not be forwarded and that no weightage would be accorded to the candidates with past services and experience, some of them approached this court with WP(C) 58/2006 which was disposed of on 6.1.2006 with the observation that as they had already made applications to the District Employment Exchanges they were at liberty to make proper requests for condonation of their age whereupon the concerned authorities would pass appropriate orders thereon. The respondents were further directed to permit the petitioners therein to participate in the selection process after taking a decision on their applications for condonation of their over bar. A similar order dated 10.2.2006 was passed in WP(C) 7476/06 filed by some of the petitioners. They have maintained that though eventually by a notification dated 20.1.2006 the oral interview was supposed to be conducted on 23.1.2006 to 30.1.2006, the same was not held. While the matter rested at that the impugned advertisement dated 3.2.2007 was published, inter alia, raising the minimum educational qualification to a pass in H.S.S.L.C. Examination. The upper age limit for general candidates was fixed at 37 years, which was relaxable for 5 years for the reserved category candidates mentioned therein. The petitioners have asserted that the upgradation of the educational qualification is an impediment for their participation in the process. Further the ceiling on the upper age as a condition of eligibility has the effect of disqualifying them as well. WP(C) 5619/07 9. The petitiQners had approached this court earlier with WP(C) 667/ 02 and WP(C) 72/06 claiming a preferential treatment in the matter of appointment to the post of Surveillance Worker under the Department on the basis of past services rendered by them in the said capacity and the experience acquired thereby. They contend that as this court by orders dated 6.2.2002 and 9.1.2006 respectively passed in the aforementioned writ proceedings had directed consideration of their cases in accordance with law, the impugned advertisement with altered conditions of eligibility is unsustainable in law. The petitioners therefore have prayed for injuncting the impugned process and directing the respondents to provide appointment to them as Surveillance Workers by according preference in compliance of the letter and spirit of the aforementioned orders of this court. WP(C) 5587/2007 10. The petitioners who are matriculates claim to have been appointed as Surveillance Workers on honorary basis under the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State against vacant post following interview and verifications of their credentials. Their services were, however, terminated after about a year. Their names were sponsored by the concerned employment exchanges for the post of Surveillance Workers when the earlier process therefor was initiated by the employment notice dated 25.1.2005. Thereafter they had approached this court with WP(C) 65/2006 praying for a direction for consideration of their cases in view of their past services. Their names were sponsored by the concerned employment exchanges for the post of Surveillance Workers when the earlier process therefor was initiated by the employment notice dated 25.1.2005. Thereafter they had approached this court with WP(C) 65/2006 praying for a direction for consideration of their cases in view of their past services. This court disposed of the said proceeding by order dated 9.1.2006 directing the respondent authorities to consider their cases in accordance with law. As the impugned advertisement prescribed a higher educational qualification of pass in H.S.S.L.C. they being deficient in that regard could not offer their candidature. They having come to learn that a written examination relating to the process has already been conducted to their exclusion are before this court for redress. WP(C) 6117/07 11. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Superior Field Worker on 15.9.2006 on honorary basis. While his application for regularization is pending, the impugned advertisement dated 3.2.2007 has been published and he has appeared in the written examination held pursuant thereto. As his name is not included in the list of successful candidates published on 13.11.2007, he seeks cancellation thereof. WP(C) 6276/07 12. The petitioners who are matriculates had been temporarily appointed as Surveillance Workers/Vaccinators under the Directorate of Health Services, Assam. According to them, on 27.5.1993 an interview was held for regular appointment to the post of Surveillance Worker whereafter a merit list of 12 candidates was prepared. As though their names appeared therein, they were not appointed, being aggrieved, they approached this court with WP(C) 2559/2000 which was disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to consider their cases. Meanwhile nine posts of Surveillance Workers and Vaccinators were directed to be kept unfilled. The petitioner thereafter participated in the process initiated by the advertisement dated 2.12.2005. However, without completing the said process, the impugned advertisement has been published by upgrading the academic qualification, which has rendered them disqualified to apply for the post referred to therein. Being aggrieved, the petitioners seek redress. STATED RESPONSE 13. The State respondents while endorsing the action taken have dismissed the challenge to the Order, 2006 and the consequential steps as ex-facie untenable. Being aggrieved, the petitioners seek redress. STATED RESPONSE 13. The State respondents while endorsing the action taken have dismissed the challenge to the Order, 2006 and the consequential steps as ex-facie untenable. They have maintained that the Government of Assam after due deliberations had taken a conscious decision to upgrade the minimum educational qualification for the post of Surveillance Workers/Basic Health Workers and other similar posts as pass in H.S.S.L.C. They have clarified that the Health Department initially suggested that the minimum educational qualification for the said post ought to be H.S.L.C. pass in the Science stream preferably with Biology or any equivalent examination. This was with the basic objective of training a Surveillance Worker/Basic Health Worker to act as the first contact and care person as a paramedical staff. According to the answering respondents, this proposal of enhancement of educational qualification for the aforementioned posts under the National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme ('the Programme') by a Service Order pending finalization of a service rule was forwarded to the Finance (Estt. A), Department for approval. The Finance, Legislative as well as Personal (B) Departments thereafter granted their concurrence. The issue was thereafter placed before the Cabinet, which on 14.12.2006 approved the Order, 2006 laying down the conditions of eligibility for the above mentioned posts as well as the procedure and modalities for filling up the same. The respondents have emphasized that the posts of Surveillance Worker and Basic Health Worker are pivotal and strategic in nature whereupon the success of the programme essentially depends. They are supposed to be the key persons at the grass root level aud have to carry out the Information and Education Communication Programme ('the I.E.G.'). The basic health workers are also required to maintain village wise population registers and are entrusted as well with the job of collecting blood slides from fever cases. The respondents, therefore, have emphatically accented upon the educational qualification of H.S.S.L.C. pass to be an essential and basic qualification for competent and efficient performance of duties relatable to the said posts. 14. The State respondents buttressed their above recorded stand in WP(C) 2289/07 by their affidavit in WP(C) 4901/07 maintaining that for assessing the academic records of the candidates as comprehended by the Order, 2006, it is essential to hold written tests to assess the comparative merit of the candidate's by applying an uniform benchmark. 14. The State respondents buttressed their above recorded stand in WP(C) 2289/07 by their affidavit in WP(C) 4901/07 maintaining that for assessing the academic records of the candidates as comprehended by the Order, 2006, it is essential to hold written tests to assess the comparative merit of the candidate's by applying an uniform benchmark. They have affirmed that an interview would be conducted of the successful candidates in the written tests. They have clarified that a nine Member Committee had been constituted vide notification No. HLA. 1080/2007/8 dated 5.7.2007 under the Chairmanship of Director of Medical Education, Assam, for conducting the written examination for Surveillance Workers its role being limited to holding of the said examination under the guidance of the Selection Board constituted under the Order, 2006. On the completion of the written examination, the Committee for conducting the examination for Surveillance Workers ('the Committee') has furnished a merit list to the Selection Board ('the Board'), which selected the successful candidates therefrom for being called for the interview. According to the respondents, in this regard, the Board in its meeting held on 7.11.2007 under the Chairmanship of the Director of Health Services, Assam, and three other members finalized the vacancy position and decided to announce the results of the written tests held on 26.8.2007 on 12.11.2007, For this the Board required the Examination Committee to prepare a merit list of three times the number of vacancies in the post of Surveillance Worker fixing the cut off mark in the written test to be 30%. On receipt of the said merit list, the Board in its meeting held on 12.11.2007 decided to publish the results of the written examination for the post of Surveillance Workers after obtaining the approval from the Government. The results were accordingly published on 13.11.2007. 15. The State respondents in WP(C) 4634/07 while maintaining that the matriculates are not eligible to apply for the post have pleaded that in fact the applications of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 8 had been rejected being under qualified. They have also conceded that admit card to the petitioner No. 10, however, had been mistakenly issued. They have thus insisted that the petitioner's representation before this court of not having applied is untrue. 2 and 8 had been rejected being under qualified. They have also conceded that admit card to the petitioner No. 10, however, had been mistakenly issued. They have thus insisted that the petitioner's representation before this court of not having applied is untrue. According to the respondents, pursuant to a decision taken on 5.7.2007, the 9 Member Committee headed by the Director of Medical Education, Assam, as its Chairman constituted to conduct the written test and the oral interview for the proposed recruitment took a decision to entrust the Assam Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. ('AMTRON') to undertake the work of data entry of the applications and issue of admit cards to the candidates for written test to be held on 26.8.2007. Accordingly, the' application forms received were forwarded to AMTRON from the office of the Director of Health Services whereupon the said agency engaged 8 to 10 data entry operators to feed the particulars available in such forms in computers for issuing admit cards to the eligible candidates. In doing so, the applications were filtered by applying the parameters of eligibility and were recorded in the database. Crosschecking was also done to ensure against wrong rejection. Thereafter the database of the qualified candidates was segregated and processed in the computer. The applications were sorted by the names and districts of the applicants and an "automatically generated Roll No." was allotted against each candidate's name in the system. The names of the centers for the written test were furnished by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, and on linking these information with the manes and addresses of the candidates with their allotted Roll No., computerized admit cards were issued in their names. All the admit cards were issued on the same date. 16. Centre wise attendance sheets were prepared containing the Roll No., name and address along with the space for signature and affixation of photograph. Attendances of the candidates were recorded in the printed forms by the invigilators on the date of the written test, i.e., 26.8.2007. On receipt of the answer scripts physical count thereof was first carried out followed by one to one verification of attendance sheet and answer scripts and those were thereafter mixed and converted into bundles of 100. The answer scripts were provided serial numbers, which were recorded in the computer. On receipt of the answer scripts physical count thereof was first carried out followed by one to one verification of attendance sheet and answer scripts and those were thereafter mixed and converted into bundles of 100. The answer scripts were provided serial numbers, which were recorded in the computer. Thereafter a print out of the record was taken against each bundle of 100 answer scripts and checked for correctness of serial number. The top portion of the first page of the answer script containing the name and roll No. was segregated and kept in safe custody and the answer scripts were packed and sealed for evaluation along with required sets of blank forms for compilation of marks. 17. The respondents have explained that after the evaluation of the answer scripts, the marks secured would be entered in the computer as per the compilations submitted by the evaluators, which would thereafter be checked by mapping each answer script with the help of a bar code. The entries thereafter would be sorted in the descending order of marks against each roll No. The merit list would thereafter be prepared on the basis of the zone of consideration fixed by the Committee and thereafter the individual application forms would be sorted out in order of merit. The merit list along with the corresponding applications would be returned by AMTRON to the Director of Health Services for holding personal/oral interview of the candidates called therefor in course of which their testimonials would be verified. 18. The respondents have disclosed that in all 20,000 applications for Surveillance Workers and 7,325 applications for Basic Health Workers have been received which were scrutinized as per the above procedure. They have, however, conceded that on scrutiny, 189 applicants with HSLC have been wrongly recorded in the database as shown to have passed HSSLC. Though out of the 1939 candidates disqualified, 1428 of them had been rejected being under qualified, the respondents have admitted that some error had crept in at the "data entry level" while transferring the particulars from the application forms of the candidates and due to such failing admit cards had been issued to some candidates who though had in fact passed HSLC were mistakenly shown to be qualified in terms of the advertisement. The respondents while admitting that the resultant discrepancy is due to human imperfections have undertaken to be careful in future so much so that the same does not materially affect the selection process. They have undertaken that in course of the oral/personal interview, the application forms along with the original certificates of the candidates called therefor would be rigorously examined by the Selection Committee in course of which assuredly, the academically under qualified candidates would be identified and discarded from the selection process. The respondents have assured in unequivocal terms that no under qualified candidate would be selected or appointed against the advertised posts. 19. In course of the hearing, the Secretary of the Department has by a supplementary affidavit extended unconditional apology for the already occurred lapse. The deponent has asserted that a decision has been taken at the highest level of the Department to apply stringent measure for the lapse in the remaining phases of the selection process. The proposed steps have also been set out in the affidavit which also contains a disclosure that a Committee has been cautioned by the Government that in the event of any other lapse recurring, the person or persons involved in the process and found responsible therefor would be disciplinarily proceeded against. It has been further stated in the affidavit that in the meantime a letter had been issued on 1.10.2007 to the Managing Director of AMTRON to identify the erring person or persons for whom the discrepancy had occurred and to submit a report as to the action intended to be taken against him/them. The answering respondent has undertaken in the affidavit on behalf of the State Government that no irregularity of any kind would be permitted to occur hereafter and under qualified candidate would not be permitted to participate in the ongoing selection process. 20. In their reply affidavit, the petitioners have admitted their inadvertent mistake in stating that none of them had applied in response to the advertisement. Though admitting that the petitioner Nos. 2, 8 and 10 in WP(C) 4634/2007 had submitted their applications, they have denied that admit card for petitioner No. 10 had been issued as claimed by the respondents. 20. In their reply affidavit, the petitioners have admitted their inadvertent mistake in stating that none of them had applied in response to the advertisement. Though admitting that the petitioner Nos. 2, 8 and 10 in WP(C) 4634/2007 had submitted their applications, they have denied that admit card for petitioner No. 10 had been issued as claimed by the respondents. The petitioners, however, expressed strong reservation on the large scale error in the process in spite of the exhaustive and detailed process claimed to have been under taken by a third agency entrusted by the respondents therefor. While contending that the detection of about 189 under qualified applicants was pursuant to a scrutiny subsequent to the institution of the instant proceeding, the petitioners have alleged that the induction of the candidates have been deliberate. According to them, the respondents by their own admission are not certain about the exact number of such applications and that the selection process in view of the irregularities revealed stand invalidated. 21. Mr. Das has persuasively urged that the duties of the Surveillance Worker as well as the Basic Health Worker having remained the same, there is no rationale or intelligent basis for upgradation of the basic academic qualification as intended by the Order, 2006. Further there being, no reasonable nexus thereof with the object professed to be achieved, the raise in the educational qualification ought to be adjudged illegal, arbitrary and ribn est in law. The learned senior counsel contended that as Surveillance Workers and the Basic Health Workers with pass in HSLC have been deftly performing their duties till date, upgradation of the level of academic qualification to ensure better receptivity in the training to the recruits defies logic. This is more so as the minimum educational qualification for the paramedical staff continues to be a pass in the H.S.L.C. examination. Mr. Das urged that as the vacancies had occurred in the year 2005 or before, it is impermissible to fill up the same by imposing conditions of eligibility prescribed by Order, 2006, which has not been accorded a retrospective effect. The learned senior counsel, therefore, contended that the conditions of eligibility prescribed by Order, 2006 cannot have any application for filling up those posts and, therefore, the disqualification imposed thereby on the matriculates is ineffectual, null and void. Mr. The learned senior counsel, therefore, contended that the conditions of eligibility prescribed by Order, 2006 cannot have any application for filling up those posts and, therefore, the disqualification imposed thereby on the matriculates is ineffectual, null and void. Mr. Das pleaded that no administrative policy in disregard of human issues is sustainable in law and as the petitioners had been nursing a legitimate expectation to be considered for regularization against the posts advertised on the basis of their educational qualification, past services and experience on the touchstone of fairness and reasonableness as well, the impugned process is liable to be interfered with. The following decisions of the Apex Court were relied upon Y.V. Rangaiah and Others v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others, AIR 1983 SC 852 , State of Punjab and Another v. Amarjit Kaur, (1997) 10 SCC 419 , Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 625 . 22. Mr. Bhuyan while dilating on the pleaded facts has forcefully urged that the ongoing exercise is a travesty of selection meant for employment to public office. The learned counsel has contended that it passes ones comprehension as to how persons ineligible could be summoned for the interview while on the same parameter the petitioners have been rejected. Mr. Bhuyan has been critical about the introduction of AMTRON in the process contending that no such third agency is contemplated in the Order, 2006. He has dismissed the assurance in the affidavits as vacuous asserting that the exercise being afflicted by incurable and all pervasive illegalities is liable to be adjudged null and void. 23. Mr. Buzarbaruah supplementing the above assertions has argued that considering the nature of the works performed by the Surveillance Workers and Basic Health Workers, the insistence for the educational qualification of the candidates to be a pass in H.S.S.L.C. is fallacious. He indicated that the educational qualification for equivalent posts in the other departments of the Government being matriculation there is no fathomable justification to prescribe a higher qualification for the post of Surveillance Worker and Basic Health Worker. Referring to clause 6 of Order, 2006, the learned counsel urged that no written examination is comprehended therein and, therefore, the steps therefore being, wholly unauthorized, the impugned process is liable to be adjudged null and void. Mr. Referring to clause 6 of Order, 2006, the learned counsel urged that no written examination is comprehended therein and, therefore, the steps therefore being, wholly unauthorized, the impugned process is liable to be adjudged null and void. Mr. Buzarbaruah questioned the validity of the Committee constituted by the notification dated 5.7.2007 to be incompatible with the one prescribed by the Order, 2006, thus, vitiating the exercise purportedly undertaken by it for holding the written examination. The concept of a Committee for conducting the written examination distinguished from the Board sought to be introduced is only a desperate endeavour to save the situation, he urged. Mr. Buzarbaruah relying on the letter dated 17.12.2005 of the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, mentioning the academic qualification for Surveillance Worker and Basic Health Worker as a pass in H.S.L.C. or equivalent examination sought to impress upon this court that the duties attached to the said post having remained the same there is no conceivable justification to upgrade the basic academic qualification therefor. The Order, 2006 in view of its binding nature does not permit the respondents to depart therefrom at their convenience and, therefore, the impugned exercise being, vitiated by incurable illegalities and want of authority is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice, he urged. 24. Mr. Rajkhowa has argued that the petitioner in WP(C) 6117/07 though academically qualified in terms of the advertisement has not been included in the merit list for interview presumably as the necessary weightage of his past services and experience had not been accorded to him. This failing on the part of the State respondents being in contravention of the letter and spirit of the relevant orders of this court, the impugned merit list dated 13.11.2007 is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel further urged that the non-inclusion of the petitioners in WP(C) 5619/07 in the merit list being in derogation of the directions of'this court passed in WP(C) 667/2002 and WP(C) 72/06 is liable to be adjudged illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory as well. 25. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 5589/07 adopted the arguments repudiating the upgradation in the academic qualification. 26. Mr. 25. Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 5589/07 adopted the arguments repudiating the upgradation in the academic qualification. 26. Mr. Uzir, Advocate for the petitioners in WP(C) 5587/07 has impeached the impugned process to be contumatiously violative of the order dated 21.2.2005 passed in WP(C) 2557/2000 to consider their cases for appointment as Surveillance Workers on regular basis. 27. Mr. Saikia as against this has argued that the multifarious duties performable by a Surveillance Worker and a Basic Health Worker under the Programme compellingly justify upgradation of the basic academic qualification to a pass in HSSLC examination and a decision to that effect having been taken at the highest administrative level following indepth deliberations, no interference therewith is called for. The learned counsel underlined that a written test was indispensable for standardizing the academic performance for facilitating a correct comparative assessment of merit and that the decision in that regard is not repugnant to the objective of the Order, 2006. While pointing out that the Selection Board envisaged in Order, 2006 need not be differently constituted, the make up thereof being provided therein, Mr. Saikia submitted that the Committee had been composed only for conducting the written examination and thus could not be construed to be a substitute of the Board in any manner. In that view of the matter, induction pf the representatives of AMTRON, a Government Corporation in the Committee to oversee the written examination to be conducted by the Dibrugarh University does not constitute any violation of the Order, 2006. The Selection Board being in overall charge of the process and the final authority in drawing up the merit list, the introduction of the Committee and its association with the process per se does not vitiate the pursuit, he urged. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel invited the attention of this court to the minutes of the Committee and the resolution recorded from time to time on the conduct of the written examination and preparation of the merit list. Mr. Saikia rejected the plea against applicability of Order, 2006 in filling up the posts contending that none of the petitioners has any acquired right to be considered de hors the same, in absence of any Rule or Service Order to this effect. Mr. Saikia rejected the plea against applicability of Order, 2006 in filling up the posts contending that none of the petitioners has any acquired right to be considered de hors the same, in absence of any Rule or Service Order to this effect. In this regard, the learned counsel pointed out that the decision to abandon the process initiated by the advertisement dated 21.12.2005 had been upheld by this court by its judgment and order dated 23.2.2007 passed in WP(C) 3070/06. He, therefore, maintained that the plea of filling up of the posts on the basis of earlier Rules or instructions is unsustainable in the present facts and circumstances. The Order, 2006 having been conceived of to improve and alleviate rural health, the challenges laid being dissentient therewith are liable to be rejected in limine. Mr. Saikia brushed aside the assertions made on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) 5619/2007, WP(C) 5587/07, WP(C) 6117/07 and WF C) 6276/07 as frivolous, flawed and inconsequential. 28. Mr. Saikia has further urged that Order, 2006 having stipulated HSSLC to be the qualifying academic degree, the petitioners as HSLC candidates are obviously not eligible to compete for the posts advertised. Detailing the process contemplated and pursued, the learned counsel argued that the error in issuing admit cards for written examination to some ineligible candidates had been unintentional and attributable to human fallibilities. However, as stringent steps have been taken to ensure that in course of the oral interview and thereafter no under qualified or ineligible candidate is either selected or appointed, no interference by this court with the ongoing drill is called for. 29. The rival pleadings and the assiduous arguments advanced have received the cautious attention of this court. The Order, 2006 made by the Governor as its preamble suggests is a precursor to the Service Rules under article 309 of the Constitution of India. Pending such Rules, this Order has been framed to regulate the recruitment and the conditions of the service of the persons appointed as Para-Medical & Non Gazetted Staff under the establishment of the Directorate of Health Services, Assam, for the implementation of the Programme. The related service has been titled as "The Assam Vector Borne Disease Control Programme Workers Service." The process of framing a Service Rule, as the. The related service has been titled as "The Assam Vector Borne Disease Control Programme Workers Service." The process of framing a Service Rule, as the. File No. HLA 1111/2002 discloses for the SW, BMW, etc., in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the State had taken its roots in the early part of the year 2006. While the exercise for recruitment to the aforementioned posts was underway following the advertisement dated 21.12.2005, by order dated 4.9.2006, this pursuit was abandoned and the Director of Health Services, Assam, was required to issue fresh advertisement in due course of time. The challenge to the cancellation of this process was negatived by this court in WP(C) 3070/06 and other connected writ petitions. The Order dated 23.2.2007 to the said effect having remained unchallenged, the same has assumed a finality. 30. The various office notices attendant on the formative stages of the draft Service Rule display a conscious emphasis on the part of the departmental authorities for the minimum educational qualification to be a pass in H.S.S.L.C. examination in the science stream preferably with Biology or any equivalent examination. As the posts were originally required to be filled up earlier for the urgent implementation of the programme, a suggestion was mooted to make an Executive Order in the same lines as of the draft Service Rules pending finalization thereof. 31. The above mentioned office file reveals that at the highest administrative level of the Government, it was decided that the above academic educational qualification be approved as the Surveillance Worker and Basic Health Worker are under the Programme to act as the first contact and care persons with significant responsibility. The proposal on circulation was vetted by the Personal (B) Department, Finance (Estt-A) Department and the Legislative Department of the State. A Cabinet memorandum was accordingly drawn up and the Cabinet in its meeting held on 14.12.2006 approved the Order, 2006 with the condition that the minimum academic qualification of a candidate for direct recruitment should be a pass in the H.S. Examination. 32. The disclosures from the contemporaneous official records, therefore, unambiguously demonstrate a percipient decision of the concerned State authorities to prescribe the academic qualification of a pass in H.S.S.L.C. Examination for recruitment to the existing vacant posts of Surveillance Worker and Basic Health Worker being mindful of the fact that the earlier accepted minimum educational qualification was matriculation. 32. The disclosures from the contemporaneous official records, therefore, unambiguously demonstrate a percipient decision of the concerned State authorities to prescribe the academic qualification of a pass in H.S.S.L.C. Examination for recruitment to the existing vacant posts of Surveillance Worker and Basic Health Worker being mindful of the fact that the earlier accepted minimum educational qualification was matriculation. The notes and comments available in the official records profusely endorse the upgradation of the academic qualification in the interest of better and effective implementation of the Programme. 33. Obviously the Order, 2006 with its accompanying status has a sanctity of its own with the consequential binding effect on all concerned. It thereby has repealed the Rules/Orders corresponding thereto and in force immediately before the commencement thereof and as the facts preceding thereto suggest, the same had been framed bearing in mind the vacancies in the posts of Surveillance Worker and Basic Health Workers existing as well as anticipated in near future. In this factual premise, the communication dated 17.12.2005 of the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, referring to the academic qualification for the post of Surveillance Worker and Basic Health Worker to be a pass in H.S.L.C. or equivalent examination is inconsequential. 34. The Office Order, 2006 defines the class and cadre of the services, method of recruitment to the posts comprehended therein and the academic qualification for the candidates therefor. It also prescribes the composition of the Selection Board defined in section 2(b) thereof. The relevant Cabinet memorandum mentions about the academic qualification enumerated in clause 8 of the Service Order placed for approval to be a pass in H.S. Examination in science stream or its equivalent examination with Biology as one of the subjects against the existing requirement of a pass in H.S.L.C. examination. It discloses an exigency for enhancement of the qualification as the posts involved are paramedical technical posts with the comprehension that the science students would be able to shoulder the duties more easily in comparison to the non-science students as the former would be more conversant with the bask concept of vector borne dif iases. 35. The continuous endeavour to raise the academic qualification as a condition of eligibility, therefore, as a avowed purpose with a perceptible nexus with the object of appropriate implementation of the Programme. 35. The continuous endeavour to raise the academic qualification as a condition of eligibility, therefore, as a avowed purpose with a perceptible nexus with the object of appropriate implementation of the Programme. It is the categorical pleaded case of the State respondents that under the Programme, the SW/BHW would play a key role at the grass root level and amongst others would carry out the "Information and Education Communication Programme" besides acting as the first contact person and would be decisively instrumental for the successful implementation of the Programme. The rise in the academic qualification in the above background is based on value judgment and an alert appreciation of the ground realities, which cannot, thus, be readily discarded as arbitrary, illogical or unrealistic. As it is, it is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe the essential conditions of eligibility including the academic qualification of a candidate for a post. Such a privilege lies exclusively in the administrative domain and unless any decision with regard thereto is per se arbitrary, absurd or is in defiance of logic by all means, a writ court in exercise of its power of judicial review ought not to substitute its own appraisaj. and express an opinion different from that of the executive authority. No judicially ordained or manageable parameters exist to repudiate the justification for the elevation in the academic qualification to decry the same as insensible or preposterous. On a totality of the consideration of the facts and circumstances in hand, the decision taken by the State respondents to upgrade the minimum academic qualification from a pass in H.S.L.C. to that in H.S.S.L.C. cannot be repudiated as unintelligible or irrational to warrant the intervention or this court. Having regard, to the nature of the duties and responsibility under the Programme, the bearing of the academic intellect of a candidate thereon is undeniable and a prima facie index of the assurance of the level of his/her performance. 36. The decision of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah (supra) and R. Dayal (supra), are vividly in different contextual facts where the accrued right of the parties affected under the statutory Rules in force were sought to be denied by inexplicable administrative fiat. In the present factual setting those decisions are of no avail to the petitioners. 36. The decision of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah (supra) and R. Dayal (supra), are vividly in different contextual facts where the accrued right of the parties affected under the statutory Rules in force were sought to be denied by inexplicable administrative fiat. In the present factual setting those decisions are of no avail to the petitioners. No Rules or Service Order as such existed before 8.1.2007 (date of notification of Order, 2006) and no ongoing process on the basis of the earlier prescribed academic qualification was in subsistence on the date of enforcement of Order, 2006. Neither the petitioners thus can assert any vested right in them to claim that the posts of SW and BMW existed on the date of framing of Order, 2006 ought to be filled up on the basis of the earlier academic qualification nor can the conscious decision of the State respondents in framing the same for recruitment to the existing and anticipated vacancies in these posts on the basis thereof be denounced as frivolous, absurd or preposterous. The plea that the posts existing on the date of enforcement of Order, 2006 ought to be filled up with then prescribed academic qualification of pass in H.S.L.C. being untenable is, thus, rejected. 37. Rule 6 of the Order stipulates that direct recruitment to the cadre of SW and BHW would be made by the appointing authority on the basis of selection made by the Selection Board in order of preference. Therefor, the appointing authority i.e. the Director of Health Services, Assam, would make an assessment of the number of vacancies which are likely to occur in the next year and work out the details about reservation etc. The appointing authority would thereafter invite applications through advertisement to be published in atleast two widely circulated newspapers of the State. On receipt of the applications, the appointing authority would prepare a statement of all candidates and forward those to the Board with details about vacancies and reservation with a request to the latter to recommend a list of candidates in order of preference qua the number of vacant posts as advertised. The Board is required to make the selection by taking into account the academic records or the candidates and their performance in the interview and thereafter recommended a list of successful candidates in order of preference. The Board is required to make the selection by taking into account the academic records or the candidates and their performance in the interview and thereafter recommended a list of successful candidates in order of preference. On the receipt of the said list of the recommended candidates/ the appointing authority would approve the same unless it considers any change to be necessary. The list as finally approved by the appointing authority would form the select list wherefrom the appointments would be made. 38. It is, thus, obvious from the aforementioned provision of the Order that the Board is entrusted with the duty of making selection of the candidates by taking into account the academic record(s) and performance in the interview to be conducted by it. The process of evaluation therefore comprehends two segments, i.e., assessment of academic record and interview. The final evaluation would be on the basis of a candidate's combined performance. The argument that appreciation of the academic record does not contemplate holding of a written examination to test the candidate's intellectual level is difficult to accept. 39. As pleaded by the State respondents, a written examination has been envisaged to standardize the academic performance of the candidates vying for the posts as their credentials pertaining to the qualifying examinations may not provide an uniform testament thereof. Considering the fact that the competing candidates would have passed the qualifying examination at different points of time given the outer age limit, the justification provided by the State respondents cannot be jettisoned lightly. No bar in the Order, 2006 is discernible to prohibit the Board from devising its own method of judging the academic distinction of the candidates. So long as the steps taken by the Board in discharge of its role under the Order are extinctive of the underlying purpose thereof, some leeway can permissibly be conceded to it to scheme and design its measures for a correct and desirable analysis of the suitability of the candidates to be recommended. The Order having been framed with an end in view, the authorities and entities comprehended therein for actualizing the provisions thereof ought not to be straitlaced by the letters thereof disregarding the goal envisaged. The assertion against the necessity of a written examination is unconvincing as well. 40. The Order having been framed with an end in view, the authorities and entities comprehended therein for actualizing the provisions thereof ought not to be straitlaced by the letters thereof disregarding the goal envisaged. The assertion against the necessity of a written examination is unconvincing as well. 40. A bare reading of the Order does not reveal any absolute bar in conceptualizing a body as an adjunct of the Selection Board to accomplish the necessary ground work on its (Board) behalf and under its supervision. The Committee to conduct the written test followed by the oral interview as constituted by the notification dated 5.7.2007 includes amongst others the Director of Health Services, Assam, and the Joint Director of Health Services (M), Assam, as included in the composition of the Selection Board under Clause 11 of the Order. 41. A plain reading of the notification dated 5.7.2007 bears out that the Committee mentioned therein is for the purpose of conducting the written test followed by oral interview as steps towards recruitment to the post of SW/BHW. The constitution of this Committee is evidently different from that of the Selection Board prescribed by the Order, 2006. The documents (Annexure A-1, B, C and D) to the affidavit of the State respondents bear out the interrelation between the two bodies. As alluded hereinabove, the Order, 2006 explicitly does not bar the association of an entity other than the Selection Board so long as it does not supercede the latter. The aforementioned documents, the authenticity whereof is not in question discloses that the Committee had been entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the written examination and to draw up a merit list on the basis thereof so as to enable it (Board) to hold the interview for finalizing the selection of the candidates for appointment. 42. The Board in its meeting held on 7.11.2007 resolved to request the Committee to submit the results of the selection test latest by 12.11.2007 so as to enable it to fix the dates for interview. The Board therein unanimously decided to fix the minimum pass marks in the written test to be 30% and instructed the Committee not to consider any candidate scoring less than that in any category in the written test. The Board also resolved to call the candidates for viva/interview in the ratio of 1:3 of the total vacancies. The Board therein unanimously decided to fix the minimum pass marks in the written test to be 30% and instructed the Committee not to consider any candidate scoring less than that in any category in the written test. The Board also resolved to call the candidates for viva/interview in the ratio of 1:3 of the total vacancies. Necessary instructions to the Committee vis-a-vis the reserved category candidates were also issued. Accordingly the Committee held its meeting on 8.11.2007 and after deliberating on the resolutions of the Board as above, outlined the essential steps to act in terms thereof. The Committee on a plain reading of all necessary formalities forwarded the select list drawn up on the performance in the written test in terms of the parameters prescribed by the Board along with others in ancillary documents and records to the Director of Health Services, Chairman of the Selection Board on 11.11.2007. The office file bearing No. NVBDCP/V-108/Estt./07-339 reveals that the written test was held on 26.8.2007 whereafter the results thereof were forwarded by the Chairman of the Committee to the Chairman of the Selection Board. On 12.11.2007, the Board in its emergent meeting resolved to publish the results of the written examination on receipt of the approval of the Government. The official file No. NVBDCP/V-108/Esstt./07-339 reveals that due approval was granted at the appropriate levels of the Government whereafter the results of the written examination were published on 13.11.2008. It further transpires from the said official files that the Order, 2006 had been amended by remodeling the Selection Board providing three members to be nominated by the Government in the Health and Family Welfare Department in lieu of one as existed earlier. Resultantly by notification dated 25.1.2008, two other nominees were inducted in the Selection Board and eventually the interview was scheduled to be held on and from 4.2.2008. 43. The contextual facts and the revelations as above unambiguously proclaim the dominion of the Selection Board over the process. There is no scope to infer that the Selection Board had abdicated its authority or role as envisaged in the Order, 2006 in favour of the Committee so as to render the process violative thereof. 43. The contextual facts and the revelations as above unambiguously proclaim the dominion of the Selection Board over the process. There is no scope to infer that the Selection Board had abdicated its authority or role as envisaged in the Order, 2006 in favour of the Committee so as to render the process violative thereof. Considering the magnitude of the exercise undertaken, entrustment of the work of conducting the written examination to the Committee cannot be construed to be a cardinal transgression of the Order, 2006 so much so to invalidate the process to its core. The Selection Board being entrusted with the role of making the selection, it is entitled to adopt all ancillary measures for effective and meaningful conduct thereof. No unauthorized or illegal departure from the Order, thus, is decipherable. The Board throughout functioned as the nodal body and permitted the Committee to execute the groundwork under its vigilant supervision and monitoring. This court, therefore, does not feel persuaded to sustain the plea that the constitution of the Committee and the conduct of the written test by it at the instance of the Board per se had afflicted the process with gross illegality rendering the same ineffectual, null and void 44. In State of M.P. and Others v. Raghuveer Singh Yadau and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 151 , the Weight and Measures Department of the Madhya Pradesh Government had invited applications for the post of Inspectors enumerating the academic qualification of eligibility to be a degree in Art or Commerce or Science or Engineering or Diploma in Engineering. Accordingly the written examinations were held and on declaration of the results thereof, interview cards were issued to the candidates. Meanwhile, the relevant rules were amended and the altered qualification of eligibility stood as degree in Science with Physics or degree in Engineering or Technology or diploma in Engineering. Consequent upon the amendment, the recruitment process was withdrawn and a fresh exercise was intended to be initiated under the amended Rules. This move was successfully assailed by the respondents before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Consequent upon the amendment, the recruitment process was withdrawn and a fresh exercise was intended to be initiated under the amended Rules. This move was successfully assailed by the respondents before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Apex Court while acknowledging the power of the State to prescribe the qualifications for recruitment, allowed the appeal observing that the candidates who had appeared and passed the written examination had not acquired any right and that they could entertain only a legitimate expectation to be considered therefor in accordance with the Rules in vogue. Noticing that the amendment Rules had only prospective operation, the Apex Court approved the decision of the Government to conduct a selection in accordance therewith for final recruitment. A conscious decision of the administrative authority altering the existing conditions of eligibility for recruitment was, thus, recognized by the Apex Court so much so that it countenanced even the annulment of an ongoing process under the unamended Rules. This reinforces the view taken by this court hereinabove. 45. In responding to a plea against modification of the conditions of eligibility introduced by the Goa University for appointment to the post of Professor in Marine Sciences and initiation of a fresh process by retracting from the former, the Apex Court in G.N. Nayak v. Goa University and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 712 , observed that a court would not be justified in adopting a legalistic approach to proceed with a technical view in the matter without considering the intention of the University in laying down the condition of eligibility since it is the University to decide what kind of research would be adequate to qualify for Professorship. An elaborate rumination over the academic qualification befitting the exigencies of the post of SW and BHW at the required administrative levels having preceded the prescription of H.S.S.L.C., this court is disinclined to interfere therewith. 46. On the status of administrative directions and the binding effect thereof, the Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Maheshwdri v. Union of India and Others 1990 (Supp) SCC 440, ruled that these do not fall by their very nature in the category of legislation, direct, subordinate or ancillary and have only an advisory role to play and non-adherence thereto or deviation therefrom is necessarily and implicitly permissible, if the circumstances of any particular fact or law situation warrants the same. It held that judicial control takes over only where the deviation either involves arbitrariness or discrimination or is so fundamental as to undermine a basic public purpose, which the guidelines and the statute under which they are issaed are intended to achieve. If the departure is not arbitrary but based on some valid principle, which in itself is not irrational, irrelevant, unreasonable or discriminatory, no judicial intervention is warranted. Apart from the fact that the notification dated 17.12.2005 of the Joint Director of Health Services mentioning a pass in the HSLC to be the minimum academic qualification for appointment to the post of SW/BHW is not as such an administrative instruction of the eminence as noticed hereinabove, by no means the stipulation of a pass in HSSLC in the factual spectrum alluded hereinabove, can be held to be afflicted by any one or more of the above invalidating vices. 47. The petitioners' remonstrance against the process witnessing entry of ineligible persons, however, stands vindicated by the revelation that in spite of the tall claim of the respondents of exhaustive computerization of the steps pertaining to screening of the applications for identifying the qualified and under qualified candidates for eventual issue of the admit cards, by their own saying "about 189 numbers of applicants" who had mentioned HSLC in their application forms have been wrongly recorded to have passed HSSLC in the related database. Admittedly admit cards have been issued to the otherwise ineligible candidates. These cases might have gone undetected in absence of the instant proceedings. 48. Though their affidavits disclose a comprehensive scheme to the minutest details, the same till this stage could not demonstrate it to be full proof. Any public process to engender confidence and proclaim acceptability must be free from any perceptible irregularity or discrepancy. The conducting authorities are accountable to the public for flawless conduct of the process rigorously conforming to the prescription of law or the guidelines enacted or formulated therefor. Fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness are the essential attributes of a valid public process and the State authorities ought to be cognizant of this Constitutional obligation. From the sequence of events and the admitted incongruities noticed a disquieting degree of casualness of the concerned authorities is discernible. They ought to have been more vigilant, careful and circumspect. Fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness are the essential attributes of a valid public process and the State authorities ought to be cognizant of this Constitutional obligation. From the sequence of events and the admitted incongruities noticed a disquieting degree of casualness of the concerned authorities is discernible. They ought to have been more vigilant, careful and circumspect. The official records produced, however, suggest that the departmental authorities being confronted with the existing anomalies decided to take remedial steps to eradicate all ineligible candidates till now involved in the process. From the letters dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure B and C to the affidavit filed by the Stale respondents in WP(C) 4634/2007), it appears that the Government at the appropriate level has taken steps to disinter the cause for the anomaly in the data entry in respect of some candidates and issuance of admit card to those having a pass in the H.S.L.C. examination though ineligible. It would be the responsibility of Jhe Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department to pursue the enquiry and determine the individual responsibility for this lapse, which had threatened to sully a public process at the cost of fairness, credibility and legitimacy of State action. The aforementioned State authority, once the process is complete, would submit a comprehensive report before this court within eight weeks therefrom. On a scrutiny thereof appropriate orders as need be would be passed under the relevant provisions of law against the erring individuals. 49. Having regard to the determination on the issues raised and the unreserved undertaking furnished by the respondents of the steps assured to be taken and pursued to eliminate all ineligible candidates from the process and the decision to this effect taken-at the highest administrative level as well as the interest of the sizeable number of eligible candidates competing for the posts as well as balancing the competing equities, I am of the view that the State authorities are entitled to an opportunity to complete the exercise and take the same to its logical end. In view of the discrepancies that have already occurred and the possible bearing thereon on the process, this court is of the view that the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Director of Health Services, Assam, ought to be entrusted in particular the responsibility of ensuring that it is conducted meticulously in conformity with Order, 2006 and the professed norms in the advertisement and that no ineligible candidates is either selected or appointed therefor. Ordered accordingly. 50. The judgments and orders of this court passed in different proceeding as relied upon by the petitioners do not acknowledge any inviolable right of theirs to claim appointment or regularization sans a participatory process. 51. The claim of the petitioner in WP(C) 6276/06 in particular that he had been appointed as SW following a selection has been confuted by the Director of Health Services, Assam, in his order dated 1.3.2001 (Annexure B to the said writ petition) entering a finding that no such selection or interview had been held and that the petitioners therein had either worked for less than six months as SW against leave vacancy or as spray workers on no work no pay basis. This order has remained unchallenged. This conclusion was reached following an enquiry made by the State authority in terms of the order dated passed by this court in WP(C) 2257/2007. In the opinion of this court, the claim of the petitioners for appointment as SW and/or BHW only on the basis of their past services and/or experience is clearly untenable. 52. The incongruities, inconsistencies and the digressions highlighted by the petitioners when tested on the touchstone of public interest do not warrant interference with the impugned process in the exercise of this court's power of judicial review. The marginal aberrations do not defile the exercise to its essence and to abrogate the same acting thereon would be a thoroughly pedantic approach. On a consideration of the deductions made hereinabove in their entirety, this court is constrained to hold that the challenge laid to the process in progress for appointment to the post of SW and BHW under the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Assam, lacks merit. The petitions accordingly are dismissed. No costs.