Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 124 (TRI)

Suman Kanti Pal v. State of Tripura

2016-06-07

S.C.DAS

body2016
JUDGMENT : By filing this writ petition the petitioner prayed for setting aside and/or quashing the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the post of Sr. Instructor(DTPO) and also prayed for directing the Staterespondents to appoint the petitioner in the post of Sr. Instructor (DTPO) as per advertisement dated 21.12.2013. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. D.C.Roy for the petitioner; learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. A. S. Lodh for the Staterespondents and learned counsel, Mr. J. Bhattacharjee for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. Respondent No.2 by an advertisement No.F.DI/ESTT/IX47/2002/PartI, dated, Agartala, the 21st December, 2013 invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up of different 10 categories of posts as mentioned in the advertisement including 3 posts of Sr. Instructor (DTPO) as mentioned in Sl.No.9 of the category of posts. The petitioner having all qualifications, as required, applied for the post and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also applied for the same post. Written test was held for 75 marks and thereafter interview was taken for 25 marks. The petitioner was topping the list in the result published after written test and after the interview the respondent No. 2 appointed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the two unreserved post of Sr. Instructor (DTPO). The petitioner was given less mark in the oral interview and thereby he was deprived from the selection and consequently was deprived from the appointment to the post. 4. Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was nothing mentioned in the advertisement that written test for 75 marks and oral interview for 25 marks will be taken for the selection. He has submitted that the petitioner was having with brilliant academic career better than respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and those were not considered. He has also submitted that the petitioner was put to surprise about the manner of selection by the written test and oral interview and though in the written test, the petitioner secured highest mark but in the oral interview by giving only 10 marks the petitioner was put below the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and thereafter he was deprived from selection and appointment. It is candidly submitted by Mr. 3 and 4 and thereafter he was deprived from selection and appointment. It is candidly submitted by Mr. Roy, learned counsel that oral interview cannot be said to be fair since petitioner was given only 10 marks out of 25 marks whereas respondent No.3 was given 20 marks and respondent No.4 was given 18 marks arbitrarily and thereby put them above the petitioner. According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel, the entire selection cannot be said to be fair for nonmentioning of the manner of selection in the advertisement as well as for holding the oral interview for 25 marks. 5. Learned Addl. G.A., Mrs. Lodh submitted that in the advertisement itself it was clearly mentioned that the terms and conditions etc. will be available in the website of the department as well as in the notice board of the Industrial Training Institute and District Industries Centre. So everything was available in the public domain and the petitioner knowing everything while participated in the selection process and when came out unsuccessful cannot challenge the selection process and cannot pray for cancellation of selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 6. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted that they were selected in due process and so no interference is called for. 7. The first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no mention in the advertisement regarding the written examination and oral interview and thereby the petitioner was put in surprise. After going through the advertisement, I find it was clearly mentioned- “Detailed advertisement along with format of applications and other terms and conditions will be available in the website of www.industries.tripura.govt.in/ www.tripurainfo.com/ www.tripurain foway.com/www.tripuratoday.com/ www.neindia.com and also in the notice board of the Industrial Training Institutes and District Industries Centres.” 8. On going through Annexure R/1 to the counter affidavit i.e. the advertisement, in details, I find that the mode of selection was clearly mentioned which reads as follows: “Mode of selection: (i) Written Examination75 marks on respective Trades with Mathematical Aptitude. (ii) Vivavoce-25 marks. 2. Final selection will be made on the basis of written examination and Vivavoce. 3. Applicants will submit their application in plain paper as per following format along with necessary documents. 4. (ii) Vivavoce-25 marks. 2. Final selection will be made on the basis of written examination and Vivavoce. 3. Applicants will submit their application in plain paper as per following format along with necessary documents. 4. Detailed advertisement along with format of applications and other terms and conditions will be available in the website of www.industries.tripura.govt.in/www.tripurainfo.com/ www.tripurainfo way.com/www.tripuratoday.com/ www.neindia.com and also in the notice board of the Industrial Training Institutes and District Industries Centres.” 9. In view of the above, I find no merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Roy that the petitioner was put in surprise while written examination of 75 marks and oral interview of 25 marks were taken by the department while selecting the candidates. 10. Coming to the next point that the petitioner was given less mark in oral interview and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were given higher marks and thereby the petitioner was deprived, I find that in the oral interview the petitioner was given 10 marks; respondent No. 3 was given 20 marks; another Manu Debbarma was given 10 marks; respondent No. 4 was given 18 marks; another Bibrata Marak was given 15 marks and another Ranjita Chowdhury was given 17 marks. No doubt the petitioner was given 10 marks out of 25 but that was an assessment made by the duly constituted interview board. The petitioner did not challenge the selection process when the advertisement was made and written examination and oral interview were arranged. The moment he came out unsuccessful he challenged the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and prayed for directing the official respondents to appoint him. 11. Regarding the allocation of marks for oral interview law has now been settled by the Apex Court. It has been observed in catena of decisions that allocation of more than 15% of the total marks for oral interview is excessive and not desirable since in the process of oral interview arbitrariness cannot be excluded altogether. No doubt in the present case 25 marks was allocated for oral interview and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 secured better marks in the oral interview then that of the petitioner but that by itself cannot be said that oral interview was arbitrary. The petitioner has to show that the oral interview was vitiated because of some arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the interview board. 3 and 4 secured better marks in the oral interview then that of the petitioner but that by itself cannot be said that oral interview was arbitrary. The petitioner has to show that the oral interview was vitiated because of some arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of the interview board. There is no such material on record brought by the petitioner. In absence of any such material it cannot be said that the oral interview was wrong and written interview was correct. If the petitioner was not happy with the mode of selection published in the advertisement, by the official respondents, he would challenge it before his participation in the selection process. Once he participated in the selection process and came out unsuccessful, he cannot challenge the selection process. The respondents placed on record AnnexureR/2, the result of the selection which shows that the respondent No.3 got total 57 marks out of 100 and respondent No.4 got 53 marks out of 100. The petitioner got total 52 marks. It is a fact that since the petitioner secured less mark in the oral interview, he did not get the selection for the post. Simply because the oral interview was for 25 marks, I find no reason at all to interfere in the selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and also I find no reason at all to direct the official respondents to appoint the petitioner. 12. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and hence stands dismissed. 13. Parties to bear their own costs.