Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 373 (GAU)

ANJAN BISWAKARMA v. STATE OF ASSAM

2014-03-26

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) 237of 2012 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 25.06.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition and declined to grant any relief claimed in the wit petition. So the short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single judge was justified in dismissing the appellant’s writ petition? Heard Mr. GP Bhowmick, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. B Goyal, learned counsel for the Respondent State. The appellant (writ petitioner) had challenged his non-selection for the post of Chowkidar in the Forest Department in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. He made certain allegations and in particular to the manner of selection and the marking given to candidates by the Selection Committee, who had applied for the said post and had appeared in the selection process. The writ court called for the original record of the Selection Committee and on perusal of the same, found no arbitrariness in giving marks to the candidates including appellant and hence, dismissed the writ petition. This is what the learned Judge held: “Heard Mr. G. P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Matter relates to selection and appointment to the post of Chowkidar in the Forest Department. On 10.06.2013, this Court had passed the following order:- “Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate has produced the interview record of the petitioner. A perusal thereof indicates that viva voce was conducted on 28.01.2011 and the Interview Board comprised of 3 members. The 3 members had awarded the following marks to the petitioner-21, 16 and 15, the sum total of which is 52. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, it is stated that the cut off mark for selection of candidate in so far general category is concerned was 75. However, neither the record nor the affidavit discloses the total marks for the viva voce and the marks allocated to each of the members. Mr. Handique shall obtain instruction in this regard from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Assam and apprise the Court on the next date. However, neither the record nor the affidavit discloses the total marks for the viva voce and the marks allocated to each of the members. Mr. Handique shall obtain instruction in this regard from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Assam and apprise the Court on the next date. He shall retain the interview record of the petitioner.” Today, when the matter is called upon, Mr. Handique submits from the written instructions that there were 10 numbers of Committee constituted with 1 Chairman and 2 Members in each Committee for the viva voce. As per the instructions, the total marks for conducting the viva voce was 100, which was distributed amongst the Chairman and Members as follows:- Chairman 40 marks Member Secretary 30 marks Member 30 marks Total 100 marks In view of the order dated 10.06.2013 and the explanation furnished today, Court is of the view that prima facie, there appears to be no infirmity or anomaly in the non-selection of the petitioner. In view of above, no further order is called for in the present proceeding. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) and on perusal of the record of the case, we are in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Single judge, who, in our view, rightly dismissed the writ petition by not granting any relief to the writ petitioner. In our considered view, no fault can be noticed in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant was also not able to point out any error, which may indicate any arbitrariness in the selection process. It seems to us that other candidate were found more meritorious as compared to the appellant and hence, he could not find any berth in the select list. It was to his misfortune. So far as this court is concerned, unless some kind of infraction of fundamental right of appellant or any arbitrariness in the selection process is noticed, we cannot interfere. As said above, we could not notice any such violation and arbitrariness attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India. To conclude, thus, we find no merit in the appeal, which accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine. No cost.