Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1048 (GAU)

ANUP CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF ASSAM

2016-11-24

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.M. Bujor Barua, J. Heard Sri N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. Abedin, learned Standing counsel, Education Department on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Sri U.K. Nair, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Sri G.R. Deb, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the preparation of the select list of the candidates for appointment to the post of second Adhyapaka in the Raghunath Maheswar Chotuspathi, Karimganj. An advertisement in the local newspaper, namely, Dainik Jugsankha dated 19.08.2010 was published inviting applications from interested candidates for appointment to the said post for Second Adhyapaka (Classical) in the said institution. Pursuant to the said advertisement 7(seven) candidates submitted their candidature and were called for the interview to be held by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. 3. By the order of the Deputy Director of Sanskrit Education, Assam dated 03.09.2010, a Selection Committee was constituted for the purpose of selecting the appropriate candidate pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. As per the said order, the President of the Managing Committee of the Institute was nominated as the Chairman of the Selection Committee while the Pradhan Adhyapaka/Secretary of the Chotuspathi as the Member/Secretary. Academicians, Mrs.Gita Saha, HOD Sanskrit of Rabindra Sadan Girls College, Karimganj and Mrs. Rupali Das, Lecturer, Nilambazar College, Karimganj were appointed as members. Sri Samarendra Chakraborty and Sri Abhinash Chanda were appointed as Members of the Managing Committee while Sri Manoranjan Dharma Sastri was appointed as nominated member by the Deputy Director. The said Selection Committee in its meeting held on 11.09.2010 at 11.30 A.M., in the premises of the Chotuspathi, had taken the following resolution and the marks to be allotted by the Selection Committee for the purpose of the Selection as under : "Resolution: ....It is resolved that the following marks will be fixed for the following item: (a) Subject Knowledge: 50 (b) General Knowledge: 20 (c) Teaching quality & skill: 20 (d) Personality & performance: 10 Total marks 100, all the 7(seven) member of the Board including the Chairman of the Selection body will be supplied a copy of mark-sheet each and they will note marks for all the items. Then the average marks will be entered in the comparative statement. Then the average marks will be entered in the comparative statement. The total marks of academic career and interview will be the criteria of selecting the best candidate." 4. Although 7(seven) candidates were called for the purpose of interview by the Selection Committee, but out of the 7(seven), only 4(four) of the candidates had attended the interview. After the marks were given in the interview by the 7 member Selection Committee, as aforementioned, the average of the marks given by the different members were taken into account and accordingly by the proceeding of the Selection Committee dated 11.09.2010 the overall result of the candidates was declared. As per the result, respondent No. 6, Sri Chanchal Chakraborty was declared to have been in the 1st position, whereas the petitioner Sri Anup Chakraborty was declared to be in the second position. Two other candidates, namely, Sri Harsundar Bhattacharjee and Dwipayan Choudhury occupied 3rd and 4th position respectively, in order of merit. 5. Pursuant to the said selection, by the order of the Deputy Director for Sanskrit Education dated 04.10.2010, respondent No. 6, Sri Chanchal Chakraborty was appointed as the Second Adhyapaka, in the Raghunath Maheswar Chotuspathi, Karimganj. The said selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 is under challenge in this writ petition, on the ground that respondent No. 6 had not passed his BA examination, secondly, he did not have any teaching experience and thirdly that the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that higher marks in viva voce examination could lead to arbitrariness. Apart from the above, Sri N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the issue that the respondent No. 6 who has been selected and appointed is closely related to the Chairman of the Selection Committee, namely Sri Ramendu Chakraborty. 6. In this respect, the petitioner had also filed an affidavit, as required by this Court vide its earlier order dated 18.11.2016, inter alia, stating on oath that the sister of respondent No. 6, namely, Smti Champa Chakraborty is married to the younger brother of Sri Ramendu Chakraborty, who is the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Accordingly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire selection process is vitiated for want of fairness and for violation of the principles of Natural Justice. 7. Accordingly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire selection process is vitiated for want of fairness and for violation of the principles of Natural Justice. 7. On being asked, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 admitted the fact that the sister of respondent No. 6, is married to the younger brother of Sri Ramendu Chakraborty. 8. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the, prima facie, view that as the Chairman of the Selection Committee is closely related to the respondent No. 6, who is the selected candidate, the entire selection process stands vitiated for want of fairness and for violation of the principles of Natural Justice. 9. Bearing in mind, the aforesaid finding of this Court that due to the close relation of the Chairman of the Selection Committee with the selected candidate i.e. respondent No. 6, the selection process is vitiated, this Court feels that the other issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner need not be gone on merit, any further. 10. However, one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that higher marks allotted in the viva voce examination would vitiate the selection process. In this respect, on perusal of the comparative statement of the marks given by the various members of the Selection Committee it can be seen that the selection calculation was done against a total marks of 600, where 100 marks was allotted for HSLC Examination, 100 marks for Higher Secondary examination, 100 for BA examination, 100 for the Sastri (Kalap Vyakaran) examination, 100 for Sastri (Kavya) examination and 100 marks was allotted for the interview. 11. In that view of the matter, it is seen that the total marks on which the candidates were examined was only 100 marks for the interview 100 marks out of 600 would only constitute 16.6% as such this Court is of the view that for the purpose of the viva voce only 16.6% was allotted and the remaining mark was based on the academic performance of the candidates. 12. In view of the said factual findings, it can be held that highly disproportionate marks had not been allotted for the purpose of interview. 13. 12. In view of the said factual findings, it can be held that highly disproportionate marks had not been allotted for the purpose of interview. 13. In view of the above, as it is a considered view that the entire selection process was vitiated as the Chairman of the Selection Committee is a close relation of respondent No. 6, this Court would like to set aside the decision of the Selection Committee for selecting the respondent No. 6 as the first preferred candidate. It is directed that upon such setting aside, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 with approval of the respondent No. 3 would constitute a fresh Selection Committee and the fresh Selection Committee so constituted would de novo undertake the exercise of selecting the appropriate candidate pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 19.08.2010. It is further made clear that the de novo selection process would be confined to the 4(four) candidates who had appeared before the earlier Selection Committee on 11.09.2010. The newly constituted Selection Committee would conduct the selection as per the guidelines laid down in the earlier committee minutes of the proceeding dated 11.09.2010. While constituting the new selection committee, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to appoint any suitable person to be members of the Selection Committee but in no circumstances, Sri Ramendu Chakraborty shall be a member of the newly constituted Selection Committee. 14. The above exercise, as directed, shall be carried out within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is provided that till the decision of the newly constituted Selection Committee is made, the respondent No. 6 would continue to serve in the institute as the Second Adhyapaka, but his further continuance shall be subject to the outcome of the decision of the newly constituted Selection Committee. 15. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.