Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 296 (HP)

Karan Sharma v. State of H. P.

2015-04-06

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioner herein, in pursuance to an advertisement comprised in Annexure P-1, applied for the post of Assistant Manager (F.O). The respondent-Corporation held/conducted a test for disinterring the suitability of the petitioner for his being appointed against the post to which he had applied for. It remains un-controverted, as portrayed by Annexure P-2 and as evident from the record furnished by the respondent-Corporation, that the petitioner had obtained/secured 80 marks in the written test. He hence is the candidate who secured the highest marks, amongst all those, who along-with him appeared in the written test for selection to the post of Asst. Manager (F&B) or Assistant Manager (FO). The presence of the petitioner along-with other eligible candidates, considered suitable by the respondent-corporation within the ambit of the germane rules and guidelines, was elicited for participation in an interview to be held by a duly constituted committee/interviewing board and he along-with other aspirants was interviewed by a duly constituted interviewing board. However, the petitioner avers that the committee constituted to conduct the personal interview did not find any of the interviewed candidates suitable. Hence, it was decided by the apposite committee not to recommend any candidate for the post of Assistant Manager (FO). The reasons as borne out in the writ petition, for the interviewing committee omitting, to recommend any of the interviewed candidates suitable for selection and appointment against the post to which they had applied and who though had been successful in the written-examination conducted by the respondent-Corporation are extracted hereinafter. “………………… During personal interview, the subject expert observed that the general knowledge, awareness and subject knowledge of all the candidates(including the petitioner) interviewed were not found suitable for appointment to either the post of Asst. Manager (F&B) or Assistant Manager (FO) (for which post the petitioner had applied), therefore the said interview committee decided not to recommend any candidate for the post of Asst. Manager )Food and Beverage) and Asst. Manager (FO) and a such the petitioner was not offered appointment.” 2. The said reason which heavily weighed upon the interviewing board constituted by the respondent-Corporation to not accord marks to the aspirants to the post of Asst. Manager (F&B) or Assistant Manager (FO) has remained un-controverted. Manager )Food and Beverage) and Asst. Manager (FO) and a such the petitioner was not offered appointment.” 2. The said reason which heavily weighed upon the interviewing board constituted by the respondent-Corporation to not accord marks to the aspirants to the post of Asst. Manager (F&B) or Assistant Manager (FO) has remained un-controverted. For gauging and fathoming whether, as contended before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that, the interviewing board/committee constituted by the respondent-Corporation to evaluate and concomitantly accord marks to the candidates who appeared before them after theirs having successfully cleared the written examinations, had omitted to even accord a single mark to the petitioner herein rather had for the un-controverted reasons adverted to hereinabove rendered the entire exercise for recommending a suitable candidate to the post of Asst. Manager (F&B) or Assistant Manager (FO) nugatory, had elicited through a direction rendered against the respondent on 20.3.2015. Its perusal also discloses that the interviewing committee/interviewing board had not awarded a single mark to the petitioner despite his having secured the highest marks in the written test conducted by the respondent-Corporation. 3. The reasons as averred to by the respondent-corporation for omitting to award marks to the aspirants to the post of Asst. Manager (F&B) or Assistant Manager (FO) who appeared in the viva voce, though anvilled upon the factum of the subject expert opining that the general knowledge, awareness and subject knowledge of the candidates interviewed were all found unsuitable. However, the said reasoning as afforded by the Subject Expert for his omitting to award even a single mark to the petitioner herein despite his having secured the highest marks in the written test is perse dichotomous. The factum of his having secured the highest marks in the subject concerned is a strong repellent to the factum of his having not possessed the requisite awareness either in general knowledge or in the subject matter concerned. The score which was under the apposite regulations meted out for being awarded to the candidates standing for interview before the interviewing board/selection committee was 20. The score which was under the apposite regulations meted out for being awarded to the candidates standing for interview before the interviewing board/selection committee was 20. It is unfathomable that the candidate, as the petitioner, who secured 80 marks in the written test did not possess either the personality, awareness and subject knowledge or abysmally lacked even in general knowledge so as to necessitate or entail upon the interviewing committee/ interviewing board to not evaluate him and proceed to discard his candidature and to also proceed to not consider him suitable for selection and consequent appointment. Even though, it is un-sagacious for this Court to substitute its opinion for the opinion of the expert nonetheless given the dichotomy inter-se the highest marks obtained by the petitioner herein and his having been not evaluated by the interviewing board perse smacks of malafides. Obviously, the reasons as purportedly weighed upon the interviewing board/selection committee anvilled upon the opinion of the subject expert arise from a colorable exercise of power. Concomitantly, it stands to be deprecated by this Court. Besides, it also appears that the said purported specious and invented reason afforded by the subject expert concerned is a machination to in a most capricious manner untenably oust the petitioner for recommendation for selection and consequent appointment. Obviously it does not merit its being countenanced by this Court. The aura of illegality which hence the proceedings of the interviewing board/interviewing committee acquire as also when the lack of exercise of discretion by the interviewing committee/interviewing board comprised in its act of not evaluating the petitioner herein connoting arbitrariness actuated by malafides, renders tainted and vitiated the proceedings thereto. Consequently, this Court is constrained to set aside the proceedings of the interviewing board/interviewing committee. The respondent-Corporation is hence directed to conduct an interview afresh, for all the eligible candidates on a date to be intimated to them, by a newly constituted interviewing board/selection committee. The proceedings be returned in a sealed cover. The petition is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.