Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 979 (GAU)

N. Bijoya Devi v. state of Assam

2017-07-25

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. G.C. Phukan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. A. Deka, the learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department appears for the respondent Nos.1 – 4. The learned Government Advocate Mr. CKS Barua represents the DC, Nagaon (respondent No.7). The rival litigant Munmi Bora (respondent No.6), is represented by Mr. B.D. Das, the learned Senior Counsel. 2. The matter pertains to appointment of contractual teacher in the core subject English, in the Dakshin Hojai School, under the Scheme to strengthen and improve the quality of secondary education in the State of Assam, as per the Government Notification dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure-A). Under the Government Scheme, additional teachers are to be appointed on contractual basis, to teach the core subjects of English, Social Science, Mathematics and General Science. The selection of teachers is to be made through a Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner and the minimum entry qualification is specified in Clause 10 of the Notification of 10.6.2010. The vacancy in the School was advertised on 29.6.2010 (Annexure-C) and the petitioner offered her candidature. However, the Selection Committee placed the petitioner in the 2nd position and accordingly the rival candidate Munmi Bora (Respondent No.6), with a highest aggregate score of 260.71, was appointed as the contractual English Teacher. 3. Assailing the legality of the selection process, Mr. G.C. Phukan, the learned Counsel submits that in the viva-voce segment, low marks were awarded to the petitioner and that is how he argues that the selection of a lesser merited candidate was ensured. The petitioner also contends that preference for her candidature should have been considered on account of her B.Ed degree but this was not done. It is further submitted that the husband of the selected candidate was a Member of School Management Committee (SMC) and this has influenced the selection process, of the appointed person. 4. Under Clause 7 of the Notification dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure-A), the Selection Committee is to be constituted by the DC, the President of the SMC, the School Head and the Subject Expert – to be nominated by the Inspector of Schools. No other person including a Member of the SMC, is involved with the selection process. 4. Under Clause 7 of the Notification dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure-A), the Selection Committee is to be constituted by the DC, the President of the SMC, the School Head and the Subject Expert – to be nominated by the Inspector of Schools. No other person including a Member of the SMC, is involved with the selection process. Therefore, it cannot be said that the husband of the selected person as a Member of the SMC, could have influenced the selection, since he had no role in the process and selection was based on aggregate score of the candidates after due evaluation. 5. In so far as the B.Ed qualification of the writ petitioner, the score-sheet (Annexure-I) prepared by the Selection Committee reflects that 30 marks were awarded to the writ petitioner for her B.Ed degree whereas zero score was given for the respondent No.6, in this segment of the evaluation. Therefore, due credit to the writ petitioner was given for her B.Ed qualification and she was not prejudiced in the evaluation process. 6. The Dakshin Hojai School where the teacher was to be appointed, is an Assamese Medium School where the students are from vernacular background. Considering the profile of the students, the school Headmaster as a Member of the Selection Board, made the pertinent observation that the petitioner cannot speak Assamese whereas, the school is an Assamese Medium School. On that basis, 30 out of 70 marks was awarded to the writ petitioner in the viva-voce segment. On the other hand, answers of the selected candidate were found to be brilliant and the respondent No.6 was found to be a smart candidate with good communication skill. Thus, on the basis of comparative evaluation, higher marks in the viva-voce segment, was awarded to the respondent No.6. 7. The petitioner’s mother tongue is admittedly Meitei and she cannot speak the Assamese language. The Selection Committee considered this to be a negative quality of the candidate for the Assamese Medium School. When most students are of vernacular medium, it will be advantageous in my perception, if the English Subject Teacher can also communicate in vernacular. Therefore, awarding of lesser marks for the candidate, who is unable to converse in Assamese, in the context of the requirement of the students, cannot be said to be unreasonable. 8. When most students are of vernacular medium, it will be advantageous in my perception, if the English Subject Teacher can also communicate in vernacular. Therefore, awarding of lesser marks for the candidate, who is unable to converse in Assamese, in the context of the requirement of the students, cannot be said to be unreasonable. 8. The selection records are annexed and those reflects that appropriate marks for the educational qualification for each segment were awarded to the candidates. Even with the 30 extra marks awarded to the petitioner for her B.Ed qualification, her total aggregate score was less than the respondent No.6. That is how, the candidate with the highest aggregate score as per the evaluation made by the Selection Committee, was appointed in the school. 9. The evaluation made by the Selection Committee is found to be based on objective criterion where attempt was to select the best merited and most suitable person. Hence, I see no infirmity with the process. The writ petition is thus found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. With the above order, the case stands disposed of. No cost.