Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1484 (GAU)

Girim Das v. Union of India

2017-11-30

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents in the Food Corporation of India (FCI). None appears for the respondent No. 1. The petitioner who is a graduate in Science had participated in a selection process pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent FCI. As per the said advertisement published on 15th & 16th November 2008 in all the leading newspaper of Guwahati zone of FCI, applications were invited for 25 posts of Asstt. Grade-III(A/Cs). 2. The advertisement provided that the selection process would consist of a written test, group discussion and interview. It was also provided that the written test will be in two parts, where Part-I would consist of 60 multiple choice questions of the relevant technical discipline and Part-II would consist of 60 multiple choice questions on general aptitude comprising of Reasoning, Data Analysis, Computer Awareness, General Awareness and Current Affairs. The candidates qualified in the written test, group discussion and interview, would be the shortlisted candidates for the purpose of appointment. From the affidavit-in-opposition, filed by the respondent FCI, the written test was conducted for 120 marks, group discussion for 10 marks and interview for 20 marks, the total being 150 marks. 3. The instant writ petition is being preferred by the petitioner on the premises that out of the total 150 marks as indicated above, the petitioner had secured 63 marks, but the last of the candidate, who was offered the appointment, had secured 62.05 marks. Therefore, it is a case of arbitrariness and discrimination 4. The respondent FCI by filing an affidavit had taken a stand that although the selection process was conducted for 150 marks, comprising of 120 marks for written test, 10 marks for group discussion and 20 marks for personal interview, but for the purpose of calculating the merit of the respective candidates, the proportion of marks of written test/group discussion/interview was taken in the ratio of 70:10:20. Accordingly, the marks secured by all the candidates in the written examination were proportionately reduced to the extent that the full marks of written test was considered to be 70, meaning thereby, that if a candidate had got a particular mark out of 120 in the written test, his mark will be proportionately converted to a proportion out of 70 marks. 5. 5. Accordingly, it is the stand of the respondent authorities that the petitioner had secured 48 marks out of 120 in the written test. Therefore, after conversion of his marks out of 120 to 70, his proportionate mark would be 28. On the other hand, another candidate namely, Jibesh Chandra Roy, had secured 47 marks out of 120 marks and therefore, after conversion 120 to 70, his marks was taken as 27.42. Thereafter, by taking the marks of the writ petitioner to be 28 out of 70 and 4.5 marks out of 10 was added towards group discussion and 10 out of 20 was added towards interview and accordingly, his total marks came to be 42.50. 6. But on the other hand, in respect of Jibesh Chandra Roy, his marks secured in the written test out of 70 was taken to be 27.42, in group discussion 5.5 mark out of 10 and in interview 10 marks out of 20 was added thereto by making his total marks to be 42.92. Accordingly, it was shown that the said Jibesh Chandra Das has secured more marks than the petitioner and the same was justified relying upon the aforesaid method of calculating marks as adopted by the respondent authority. It is noticed that firstly there is a reduction of the total marks from 150 to 100, it is also noticed that no reason has been stated either in the affidavit or in the records as to why the marks has been reduced to 150 to 100 and also as to why the inter-se merit could not be evaluated on the basis of the total of 150 marks. Secondly, although there was a reduction in the total marks from 150 to 100, but what has noticeable that the reduction has been made from 120 to 70 only in respect of written test, while at the same time, retaining the full marks of 10 and 20 respectively for group discussion and interview. Secondly, although there was a reduction in the total marks from 150 to 100, but what has noticeable that the reduction has been made from 120 to 70 only in respect of written test, while at the same time, retaining the full marks of 10 and 20 respectively for group discussion and interview. The effect of adopting such a procedure is that a person who had otherwise secured a higher mark in the written test can now be brought down in order of merit by proportionately reducing his marks obtained in the written test, but at the same time, by retaining the original marks obtained in the group discussion and interview, a candidate who had otherwise got lesser marks in the written test but higher mark in the group discussion and interview, can now be placed higher in order of merit, although, otherwise, he would have been below had the marks of written test been not reduced from 120 to 70. A more equitable and non-arbitrary method for reducing the total marks would have been to reduce the marks proportionately in all the three segments of the test i.e. written test, group discussion and interview instead of reducing the marks only in respect of the written test segment, while retaining the original marks for the group discussion and interview segment. Such a procedure adopted by the respondent authorities in the considered view of this Court would not only be arbitrary, but would also give an unfettered power to the respondent authorities to manipulate the resultant merit list as per its own discretion. Such a procedure adopted is unacceptable in law and would violate the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In such view of the matter, the method adopted by the respondent authorities in converting the marks of 150 to 100 as indicated above, is hereby declared to be arbitrary and also in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the above view of the matter, it is provided that the respondent authorities shall now revisit the procedure adopted in making the selection pursuant to the advertisement and make necessary selection in order of merit. In the above view of the matter, it is provided that the respondent authorities shall now revisit the procedure adopted in making the selection pursuant to the advertisement and make necessary selection in order of merit. After doing so, if the respondent authorities are of the view that any of the appointed candidates would be adversely affected, appropriate notice shall be issued to such candidate informing them about the same, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing an appropriate decision thereof shall be taken. In view of the above, writ petition stands disposed of.