Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 896 (GAU)

Timothy Hanse (Das) v. State of Assam

2010-11-29

AMITAVA ROY

body2010
JUDGMENT : 1. In assailment is the selection of the respondent No. 7 herein by the Assam Public Service Commission ('the Commission') for appointment to the post of Director of Agriculture in the Agriculture Department ('the Department') of the State. The parties are governed by the Assam Agriculture Service Rules, 1980 ('the Rules'). The aforementioned respondent though recommended for such appointment, the essential formalities remain to be completed and thus he has yet not assumed the office involved. 2. I have heard Mr. D.K. Mishra, senior advocate assisted by Mr. S. Sharma, advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. Chamaria, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, Government of Assam, Mr. K.K. Talukdar, Advocate representing the Commission and Mr. N. Dutta, senior advocate assisted by Mr. U.K. Nair, advocate for respondent No. 7. 3. The petitioner claiming himself to be a member of the scheduled tribe community has pleaded that after being appointed as Extension Officer (Agri) in the Department by an order to that effect dated 21.9.1977, he worked his way up to the present post of Additional Director of Agriculture (Hills), Diphu, with intermediate promotions as Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, Horticulturist (Assistant Director of Agriculture), District Agricultural Officer, Diphu, and Joint Director of Agriculture (Marketing), Khanapara. He has claimed vast experience in administration of Agriculture in the senior post for more than eight years and has, to reinforce this plea, appended several certificates to that effect. He has recited as well his achievements in various fields of extracurricular activities to his credit. Several departmental trainings have also been mentioned to consolidate his claim of considerable experience and worth. 4. He along with eight others including the respondent No. 7 had responded to the advertisement, ADVT. No. 05/2010 dated 22/4/2010 of the Commission inviting candidature, inter alia, for the post of Director of the Department. The respondent No. 7 having been selected by the Commission and recommended for the post, the petitioner has impeached the same on the ground that he being bereft of experience in administration of Agriculture in a senior post for a period of eight years, a mandatory prescription of the Rules, his candidature was void ab initio and ought to have been rejected in limine. No affidavit has been offered by the official respondents and the Commission through its learned Counsel has caused production of the relevant records pertaining to the impugned selection. 5. No affidavit has been offered by the official respondents and the Commission through its learned Counsel has caused production of the relevant records pertaining to the impugned selection. 5. The respondent No. 7 in his affidavit while justifying the selection has categorically refuted the allegation of his ineligibility levelled by the petitioner. To buttress his plea of being possessed of the necessary administrative experience stipulated by the Rules, he has set out in details facts and particulars relatable thereto in his counter. He has contended as well that in addition to the experience acquired by him through his various stints in the department in different capacities, which is in the administration of agriculture in senior post he also gathered such experience while serving as Senior Estate Officer and Co-Principal Investigator, Principal Investigator and Scientist incharge in the Projects executed by him. He has relied on certificates dated 16.11.2010 issued by the Registrar, Assam Agricultural University 'the University') and the Professor and Head of Department, Department of Soil Science of the University. 6. In his reply, the petitioner has sought to highlight the lacunae in the informations furnished by the respondent No. 7 to the Commission while offering his candidature in this regard when juxtaposed with the related averments to the same effect made in his affidavit. Apart from expressing his reservation as to the feasibility of the respondent No. 7's promotion from Agricultural Extension Officer to Subject-Matter Specialist (Agro) as claimed by him without being routed through the intermediate post of Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer, the petitioner has reiterated absence of his (respondent No. 7) experience in the administration of agriculture in a senior post rendering him disqualified for the post. The petitioner has denied that the posts held by the respondent No. 7 as mentioned in the certificates dated 16.11.2010 to be administrative posts so as to equip him with the experience comprehended by the Rules as a criterion of eligibility for Director of Agriculture. 7. Mr. The petitioner has denied that the posts held by the respondent No. 7 as mentioned in the certificates dated 16.11.2010 to be administrative posts so as to equip him with the experience comprehended by the Rules as a criterion of eligibility for Director of Agriculture. 7. Mr. Mishra while reiterating the pleaded stand of the petitioner has argued with reference to rules 3, 6, 8 and Schedule-II thereof that as is apparent on the face of the record that the respondent No. 7 for want of his prescribed length of experience in administration of agriculture in a senior post was ineligible to be considered for the post of Director of Agriculture, the impugned selection ought to be adjudged as null and void. Contending that the certificates dated 16.11.2010 produced by this respondent along with his pleadings, having regard to the dates thereof could not have been at the disposal of the Commission at all relevant times, the learned senior counsel has urged that on a plain reading thereof as well, it is obvious that the respondent No. 7 was wanting in the required length of experience. Mr. Mishra referring to the definition of teacher in section 2(21) of the Assam Agriculture University Act, 1968 ('the Act') sought to insist that the posts of Principal Investigator, Professor, etc. claimed to have been held by the respondent No. 7 could by no means be construed to be administrative in nature to provide him with necessary experience. 8. Per contra, Mr. Dutta has maintained that the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine as the petitioner had deliberately suppressed essential features of his (respondent No. 7) service profile demonstrative of the required experience in the administration of agriculture. Referring to a litigational background qua the petitioner's status as a reserved category candidate, the learned senior counsel has argued that a mere comparison of the certificates claimed by the petitioner to have been issued to him by the Department indicating his experience in administration of agriculture with those produced by the respondent No. 7 would authenticate the latter's eligibility vis-a-vis this claim. According to Mr. Dutta, the posts held by the respondent No. 7 right from the stage of Senior Scientific Assistant are all senior posts involving duties and responsibilities to generate experience in the administration of agriculture. According to Mr. Dutta, the posts held by the respondent No. 7 right from the stage of Senior Scientific Assistant are all senior posts involving duties and responsibilities to generate experience in the administration of agriculture. According to the learned counsel, the certificates issued by the University in favour of the respondent No. 7 all relate to duties of administrative in nature in senior posts. Contending that the requirement of Schedule-II to the Rules in this regard is not experience for eight years in an administrative post but experience in the administration of agriculture in a senior post, Mr. Dutta has insistently argued that the post of Director of Agricultural being pivotal in nature demanding proficiency and expertise in handling strategic agricultural projects of national and international ramifications, the experience gained by the respondent No. 7 in the various capacities as set out in the certificates produced by him not only render him eligible but also makes him eminently suitable therefor. Tb reinforce his plea, Mr. Dutta as well referred to section 17 of the Act to contend that even the Director of Student Welfare enumerated thereunder having regard to his duties as catalogued in section 31 thereof had been adjudged by this court in Manjura Mohan Kalita v. Assam Public Service Commission and Others, 2002 (1) GLT 363 to be eligible for the post of Director of Agriculture on the touch stone of the required administrative experience prescribed by the Rules. Mr. Dutta has urged that as the Commission on a relevant scrutiny of all relevant aspects has recommended the respondent No. 7 for the post of Director of Agriculture, this court in the exercise of its power of judicial review on the basis of the materials available on record need not intervene. 9. Mr. Mishra in reply has urged that as required by this court in Pritam Rongpi v. State of Assam and Others, 2008 (7) GLT 248, an enquiry had been held by the Committee referred to therein and the petitioner's status as a member of the scheduled tribe has been duly declared. He distinguished the decision rendered in Manjura Mohan Kalita, supra, by contending that the same was devoted principally in analysing the legislative intent of filling up the post of Director of Agriculture by direct recruitment instead of promotion from the in house candidates. He distinguished the decision rendered in Manjura Mohan Kalita, supra, by contending that the same was devoted principally in analysing the legislative intent of filling up the post of Director of Agriculture by direct recruitment instead of promotion from the in house candidates. He reiterated that experience in the post of Professor, etc., though associated with agricultural projects per se did not amount to administrative experience as contemplated by the Rules. 10. The learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department and Mr. Talukdar representing the Commission, adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 7. 11. The pleadings on record and the arguments advanced have been closely noted. The debate admittedly centres around the existence or otherwise of the required experience of the respondent No. 7 in administration of agriculture in a senior post. As is referable to rule 8 and Schedule-II to the Rules, one of the criteria of eligibility for the post of Director of Agriculture is "experience in administration of agriculture in a senior post for atleast eight years". Senior post has not been defined in the Rules. However, Rule 3, which defines the class and cadre of the service, contemplates the following posts cadre-wise. "3. Class and cadre – (1) The service shall consist of the following classes and cadres (a) Class-I Senior Grade) It shall include the cadre : (i) Director; (ii) Additional Director; (iii) Joint Director comprising the post of Joint Director of Agriculture and Senior Subject-Matter Specialist; and (iv) Deputy Director, comprising the posts of Deputy Director of Agriculture and District Agricultural Officer. (b) Class-I It shall include cadres of (i) Subject-Matter Specialist; and (ii) Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer. (c) Class-II It shall include the cadres of (i) Junior Subject-Matter Specialist; (ii) Agricultural Extension Officer." 12. Though the facts and particulars of the experience of respondent No. 7 as set out in a tabular form in his affidavit vis-a-vis the Department of Agriculture docs not indicate the nature of his duties for the post of Sr. Scientific Assistant, Agricultural Extension Officer and Subject-Matter Specialist (Agro), the rest tally with those furnished by him to the Commission as is reflected by Annexure 13 to the affidavit in reply of the petitioner. Scientific Assistant, Agricultural Extension Officer and Subject-Matter Specialist (Agro), the rest tally with those furnished by him to the Commission as is reflected by Annexure 13 to the affidavit in reply of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, this document (Annexure 13) is not complete in the sense that it does not disclose the details of the respondent No. 7's experience in posts held by him under the Department of Soil Science, Assam Agriculture University, in connection with various handling research projects. The certificate dated 16/117 2010 (Annexures A and B) to his affidavit, however, set out the same. The period as the certificate (Annexure A) would reveal spans over from 1.4.1997 to November 2010. Apart therefrom he had held the post of Professor and Associate Professor under the University from 2/4/1990 and prior thereto. During 10.9.1980 to 1.11.1988, ho had served as Sr. Scientific Assistant, Agricultural Extension Officer and Subject-Matter Specialist (Agro). The certificates dated 13.11.2010 of the Director of Agriculture in favour of the petitioner affirming his required length of experience in administration of agriculture at various capacities in a senior post include his office as Agricultural Extension Officer and Assistant Horticulturist (Junior S.M.S.) as well. Though the eligibility of the petitioner is not an aspect under scrutiny, on a comparison of the posts and the duties relatable thereto as discharged by both the incumbents, the plea of absence of essential length of experience of the respondent No. 7 in administration of agriculture in a senior post does not commend for acceptance. 13. Noticeably the petitioner has not disputed the services rendered by the respondent No. 7 in various capacities as detailed in his affidavit as well as the certificates produced by him. Apart from the fact that this court is ill equipped in absence of judicially manageable standards to decisively analyse the subtle yet tangible nuances of experiences associable with the posts held by them, the Commission having accepted the candidature of respondent No. 7 being fully conscious of the Rules in this regard, this court is disinclined to sustain the challenge against his eligibility. A perusal of the records of the selection maintained by the Commission docs not indicate anything contrary to return a different finding. That experience in administration of agriculture permissibly comprehends one under the Agriculture University as well was underlined by this court in Manjura Mohan Kalila (supra). A perusal of the records of the selection maintained by the Commission docs not indicate anything contrary to return a different finding. That experience in administration of agriculture permissibly comprehends one under the Agriculture University as well was underlined by this court in Manjura Mohan Kalila (supra). The relevant portion of the rendering to this effect deserves to be extracted. "Serial No. 3, in my considered opinion, cannot be read in isolation with serial No. 4, and so read it will encompass not only the experience in administration of agriculture under the Government, but also the experience in administration of agriculture under an Agriculture University where the outstanding research training or extension and education are carried on. Thus the contention of respondent No. 3 in the affidavit in opposition that the experience in administration of agriculture under the Assam Agriculture University is not the experience in administration of agriculture as stipulated in serial No. 4 quoted above is misconceived." "Firstly, in serial No. 3 quoted above, it has not been mentioned that experience in administration of agriculture should be only under the ' Government, but it has only been mentioned that a candidate must have experience in administration of agriculture in a senior post at least for 8 years. The word 'administration' in Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, has been defined to mean management or conduct of an office or employment, the performance of the executive duties of an institution, business, or the like. In Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, similarly, the word 'administration' has been referred to mean the act of administering; management, etc. Thus, experience in administration would include not only experience in Government administration but also experience in other administration, such as, administration under a University." 14. The reservation expressed by the petitioner based on certain omissions qua the nature of his duties as Sr. Scientific Assistant, Agricultural Extension Officer and Sub-Matter Specialist (Agro) in the face of other regnant materials is of no overriding significance. The Rules do not enjoin experience in an administrative post and the certificates issued by the authorities concerned do not as such admit of any doubt of the authenticity thereof to sustain the plea of the petitioner. Scientific Assistant, Agricultural Extension Officer and Sub-Matter Specialist (Agro) in the face of other regnant materials is of no overriding significance. The Rules do not enjoin experience in an administrative post and the certificates issued by the authorities concerned do not as such admit of any doubt of the authenticity thereof to sustain the plea of the petitioner. On a totality of the conclusions recorded hereinabove, this court is of the view that no interference with the selection and or recommendation of the respondent No. 7 by the Commission for the post of Director of Agriculture in the State of Assam warrants interference in the exercise of its power of judicial review. The petition, therefore, lacks in merit and is dismissed. The interim restraint stands vacated. No costs.