Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 500 (GAU)

Namita Devi v. Karabi Pathak & 8 Ors.

2016-06-02

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Mr.T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.M. Mahanta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Mrs. B. Goyal, learned State counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 & Ms. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 3. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has allowed WP(C) No. 3689/2008 of Respondent No. 1. 4. On 10.3.2008, Directorate of Information and Public Relations, Assam, issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up one vacancy of the post of Make-Up-Man (Female). This post being class III is required to be filled up by direct recruitment for which procedure is provided in Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class -III and Class-IV Posts) Rules, 1997 ( in short “Rules, 1997”). According to Rule 4, direct recruitment has to be made on the basis of recommendation made by the Selection Committee in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. And the Selection Committee, after conducting necessary test/interview, has to prepare a combined list of successful candidates in order of merit. Rule 5 provides for the constitution of Selection Committee. This Rule clearly enumerates who shall be the Chairman, Member Secretary and Members of the Selection Committee. 5. Although, Respondent No. 1 submitted an application for her selection to the post of Make-Up-Man (Female), she did not receive any call letter. She therefore, went to the office of Director on 14.7.2008, where a copy of call letter was furnished to her. Respondent No. 1, then, as per call letter, appeared in the office of Respondent No. 3 on 19.7.2008 for practical test and interview where she found only appellant was present. No other candidates were present there. Respondent No. 1 was first interviewed whereafter appellant was interviewed. No practical test was held. Also no selection list was published pursuant to the interview held on 19.7.2008. Later when Respondent No. 1 visited the office of Respondent No. 3 on 29.7.2008 she found that appellant was selected and had already joined her post. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 submitted an application before Respondent No. 3 under the Right to Information Act seeking marks secured by her and appellant but no information was furnished to her. 6. Later when Respondent No. 1 visited the office of Respondent No. 3 on 29.7.2008 she found that appellant was selected and had already joined her post. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 submitted an application before Respondent No. 3 under the Right to Information Act seeking marks secured by her and appellant but no information was furnished to her. 6. Respondent No. 1 left with no option, filed WP(C) No. 3689/2008 challenging the appointment of appellant alleging serious illegalities in her selection and appointment. In reply, though the State Government defended the selection and appointment of appellant, but the learned Single Judge found gross illegalities in the selection and appointment of appellant and therefore by the impugned order has quashed the same. The learned Single Judge has also directed the authorities to hold fresh selection and till the new appointment is made appellant be permitted to continue on the post. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 7. Admittedly, no selection list was prepared by the Selection Committee as per rules. Also reason of non-selection of Respondent No. 1 was not disclosed before the learned Single Judge. Even, what marks were awarded to appellant and Respondent No. 1 were not disclosed. Selection Committee, as mandated, to be constituted under the Rules, was also admittedly not constituted for recruitment. These factors persuaded the learned Single Judge to hold that selection and appointment of appellant was wholly illegal. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in the impugned order of learned Single Judge. We also find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is well founded and unassailable. It is stated at the Bar that now after fresh selection as per rules, appointment order has been issued in favour of Respondent No. 1. 8. For these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.