Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 422 (GAU)

Abhinav Deka Barua v. State of Assam

2016-05-16

MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. Mr. P.K. Deka, learned counsel represents respondent no.4. 2. On 15.12.2015 an Advertisement was issued under the hand of the Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur District Circle, North Lakhimpur inviting applications for filling up the posts of Junior Assistant (LDA) in provincialised Higher Secondary School under Lakhimpur District. In the present case the issue is with regard to the Laluk Higher Secondary School, where one vacancy was shown, to be filled up from the general category. The petitioner applied for the post and qualified in the written test held for the purpose. As per procedure, the petitioner also appeared in the Computer Test, Computer Typing and Viva Voce conducted on 27.1.2016. As per selection made by the Committee, the petitioner was adjudged as having secured the highest marks by taking into consideration the marks secured in all the categories. In fact, he secured a total of 66 marks. The minutes of the selection was sent to the respondent no.3 for the purpose of making appointment. However, a decision was taken by the respondent no.3, and as reflected in the order dated 8.2.2016, re-fixing the Computer Test, Computer Typing and Oral Interview on 12.2.2016. In other words, by the said order dated 8.2.2016, the earlier test and interview was abandoned. 3. The procedure for selection of Junior Assistant (LDA) follows the procedure as laid down under Rule 4 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2012). The method of recruitment contemplates the School Selection Committee for holding written test along with typewriting test and viva voce. A list is required to be prepared by the said Committee and the same is required to be submitted before the appointing authority for appointment. In turn, the appointing authority i.e. the Inspector of Schools concerned, is required to fill up the vacancy in order of merit/preference from the select list and he is also required to maintain the reservation as per rules, wherever applicable. In the instant case, the consolidated statement of marks of the candidates who had participated in the selection process for the post of Junior Assistant under Laluk Higher Secondary School clearly shows that the petitioner had secured total marks of 66 in all the categories. In the instant case, the consolidated statement of marks of the candidates who had participated in the selection process for the post of Junior Assistant under Laluk Higher Secondary School clearly shows that the petitioner had secured total marks of 66 in all the categories. In fact, he secured 29 marks out of 80 in the written test; 13 marks out of 15 in Computer Test; 15 marks out of 15 in Computer Typing and 9 out of 10 marks in the viva voce. Pursuant thereto, the Committee sent its finding to the Inspector of Schools on 28.1.2016 indicating that the petitioner i.e. Abhinav Deka Boruah had secured the highest marks. Despite the findings and allotment of marks by the Selection Committee, the same was interfered with by the respondent no.3 holding that there was anomaly in the distribution of marks in the various categories. Accordingly, an order was passed that the Computer Test, Computer Typing and Oral Interview be re-scheduled on 12.2.2016. 4. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents, the stand of the respondent no.3 is reiterated. A statement is also made that the Inspector of Schools being the appointing authority is competent to order for re-examination in case of detection of irregularity in order to ensure that the selection process is fair and transparent. Mr. P. Saikia, while referring to the statement made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition also submits that by the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015, clause-5 thereof, postulates that the written test for recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant is to be held under the supervision of one officer to be named by the Deputy Commissioner concerned for one or more school. In this connection the Court is of the view that clause-5 of the Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2015 have absolutely no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case. The said clause-5 only relates to an officer being nominated to supervise the written test for recruitment and no further. This supervision cannot be construed as a supervision to change or interfere in the finding of the Selection Committee. Mr. The said clause-5 only relates to an officer being nominated to supervise the written test for recruitment and no further. This supervision cannot be construed as a supervision to change or interfere in the finding of the Selection Committee. Mr. P. Saikia also refers to the statement made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition to say that in view of large-scale anomalies found in the selection process, more particularly in the Computer Test and Oral Interview, a report to that end was submitted by the Principal-cum-Member Secretary of the School Selection Committee on 6.2.2016. The said report dated 6.2.2016, which is enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure-B, does not disclose any specific instances. The said alleged report dated 6.2.2016 contains three sentences and only discloses that "some anomalies" were made in the Computer Test and nothing further. 5. The selection of Junior Assistant, as indicated above, is governed by the recruitment process under Rule 4 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003. The said rules only allow the appointing authority to fill up vacancies in order of merit/preference determined by the selection committee. The rules do not permit the respondent no.3 to deviate from the decision of the Selection Committee and make its own independent assessment. 6. Having regard to the scheme of selection, the order of Inspector of Schools (respondent no.3) dated 8.2.2016 is found to be ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Without any doubt, and having regard to the consolidated statement of marks of the candidates prepared by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was adjudged as the most meritorious candidates out of the total 10 candidates. What logically follows thereafter is for complying with Rule 4(iv) of the aforesaid Rules, that is, for the appointing authority to fill up the vacancy in order of merit/preference from the select list submitted by the Selection Committee. 7. In view of the above, the order of Inspector of Schools dated 8.2.2016, being ex facie illegal, is hereby set aside and the State Respondents are directed to proceed accordingly to make appointment on the basis of the findings of the Selection Committee. The exercise, in terms of this order, shall be completed within three weeks from today. Writ Petition stands accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.