Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 729 (GAU)

Moanaro v. State of Nagaland and Ors.

2012-06-12

S.R.SEN

body2012
1. The instant writ petition is directed against the impugned news item published under the caption "Agri Dept. re-invites application" published through daily newspaper, Nagaland Post, dated 20.4.2010 as at Annexure C and minutes dated 15.7.2010 as at Annexure H respectively of the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the Government of India had launched a programme called "Krishi Vigyan Kendra" (‘KVK'). The KVKs are the innovative science based institutions and established mainly to impart vocational training to the farmers and field level workers. The KVKis a centrally sponsored programme directly funded by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research ('ICAR'), The KVK does not have its own requirement rules and, therefore, for the purpose of requirement, they used to adopt the rules of ICAR to fill up various posts under the KVK. 3. By an advertisement dated 4.9.2009 issued by the Government of Nagaland, Directorate of Agriculture, Kohima, invited applications to fill up the post of Programme Co-ordinator under the KVK. The minimum educational qualification was Ph.D. in the field of Agriculture/Horticulture/Animal Science/Fishery. Thereafter, by another news item published in the daily local newspaper, Nagaland Post dated 20.4.2010 under the caption "Agri. Department re-invites applications" respondents invited applications for the post of Programme Co-ordinator at KVK in continuation of earlier advertisement dated 4.9.2009 and in the said news item, the minimum educational qualification was fixed for the Programme Co-ordinator as Ph.D. in the field of Agriculture/Horticulture/Animal Science/Fishery with Bachelor Degree in the same field and also further mentioned that those candidates who had already applied earlier are eligible for interview and will be called for. 4. Petitioner got called letter on 1.7.2010 for interview, which was held on 15.7.2010 at the Office of Directorate of Agriculture, Kohima. In response to the called letter, petitioner appeared in the interview with 7(seven) other candidates and post was 4(four) in number. Result was declared vide notification No. AGR/KVK-MP/2005-06 dated 16.7.2010 whereby the respondent authorities selected only 2(two) candidates, namely (1) Dr. Keviletsu Khate and (2) Dr. Roukeivilie Mazhatsu, as Programme Co-ordinators but the petitioner was not selected. 5. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. Result was declared vide notification No. AGR/KVK-MP/2005-06 dated 16.7.2010 whereby the respondent authorities selected only 2(two) candidates, namely (1) Dr. Keviletsu Khate and (2) Dr. Roukeivilie Mazhatsu, as Programme Co-ordinators but the petitioner was not selected. 5. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel appeared for and on behalf of the petitioner submitted that once the advertisement is published asking for application from Ph.D. holders, invitation of second application including Bachelor Degree in Agriculture/Horticulture/Animal Science/Fishery is unwanted and petitioner secured 252 marks in the interview so she should have been appointed, as the documents collected through RTI, at page - 28 of the petition, shows that she has secured 3rd highest marks in the examination and post was 4(four) so what reason prevents the respondents not to appoint the petitioner as Programme Co-ordinator at the Directorate of Agriculture, Nagaland. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order/notification and minutes dated 20.4.2010 and minutes dated 15.7.2010, as at Annexure C and Annexure H to the writ petition, may be quashed and respondents may be directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner and also to pay costs for the instant case. In support of his submission, Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in (2008) 3 SCC 512 ; (2008) 7 SCC 11 and AIR 1978 SC 851 . 6. On the other hand, learned senior counsel, Mr. B.N. Sarma assisted by Mr. Apok Pongner, appeared for and on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that, it is not the case that the petitioner is not appointed just because she did not have Bachelor Degree in the same field, and further, submitted that it is also not a disputed fact that the petitioner has not secured the 3rd position in the interview but she could not be selected as her academic marks is found lower than among all the 7(seven) candidates, who appeared for the interview and he referred to Annexure R/1 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2. He, further, argued that the post of Programme Co-ordinator is equivalent to Joint Director as such the best person need to be selected and that is what exactly the selection committee/authority done; they did not base only on the scoring marks in the interview, but also considered the marks secured during the academic career of the candidates and in this regard the learned senior counsel again has referred to the said Annexure R/l. Mr. T. B. Jamir, learned CGC, appeared for and on behalf of the respondent No.3, has also endorsed the submissions of the learned Sr. counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, going through page 28 of the writ petition as well as Annexure - R/1 of the counter affidavit, I find that though the petitioner has secured 252 marks in the interview, which is reflected at SI. No.6 at page 28 of the writ petition, her academic marks reflected in Annexure R/1 at SI. No.7 shows that the petitioner has secured the lowest among all the candidates. Therefore, I find that there is sufficient grounds for not selecting the petitioner. It is a settled principle when any interview is called for, the selection criteria are being decided by the selection board as in absence of rules. So authority while selecting a candidate, naturally they are entitled to consider both securing marks at the interview as well as marks in the academic career and those persons, who are best both in the interview and in the academic career, can be selected and in such circumstances, it will not be wise on the part of the court to interfere with the selection process. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, in my considered view, are not applicable in this case in the facts and circumstances. Therefore, I am unable to accept the submissions forwarded by the petitioner's counsel and accordingly the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 8. Stayed order, if any, passed earlier is hereby vacated. 9. With this observations and direction, the writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________