Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1203 (GAU)

Pranab Kaushik v. Assam Agricultural University

2018-08-16

NELSON SAILO

body2018
JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned counsel for the Assam Agriculture University (herein after referred to as the University) arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Also heard Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition may be narrated at the outset. The petitioner responded to an advertisement issued by the respondent No.3 on 30.05.2016 (Annexure-A) inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Secretary to the Vice Chancellor of the University amongst others. As per the advertisement the applicants were to submit their applications on or before 30.06.2016. The essential qualification prescribed for the post was (a) Passed Bachelor's Degree in Arts/ Commerce/Science from a recognized University, (b) Working knowledge in reputed University or other similarly placed institutions and (c) Proficiency in computer and experience in Microsoft Office. 3. The petitioner was short listed for appearing in the interview to be held on 07.06.2017. As many as 11 candidates were short listed vide notification issued by the University, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No.2 while the respondent No.4 was placed at Serial No.8. As no result was declared after the interview was held, the petitioner submitted an application for information under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, before the authority concerned on 21.07.2017. Although no response was given to the application filed by the petitioner seeking information, the petitioner came to learn that the respondent No.4 had been appointed to the post. Being aggrieved for having not been selected to the post, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr. P. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 has been appointed by the respondent concerned by showing undue favouritism. He submits that in fact the respondent No.4 did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as was advertised for the post. He submits that the respondent No.4 is a Master Degree holder in English and was working with the Assam Tribune Newspaper. However, the eligibility criteria otherwise provides that the candidate should have working knowledge in reputed University or other similarly placed institutions. Therefore, the respondent No.4 could not have been selected and appointed to the post. He submits that the respondent No.4 is a Master Degree holder in English and was working with the Assam Tribune Newspaper. However, the eligibility criteria otherwise provides that the candidate should have working knowledge in reputed University or other similarly placed institutions. Therefore, the respondent No.4 could not have been selected and appointed to the post. He further submits that the petitioner, on the other hand, has the experience of working as the Research Scientist (System) under the project called "North Eastern Regional Node for Disaster Risk Reduction at North Eastern Region Space Application Centre (NESAC) which is under the Department of Space, Government of India and located at Umium, Meghalaya. Besides, the petitioner is a Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Science and Engineering securing First Class with Distinction which he obtained from Annamalai University, Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been selected for the post of Secretary to the Vice Chancellor. 5. Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned counsel for the University by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on 08.01.2018 submits that the allegation of discrimination, illegality and biasness alleged by the petitioner is unfounded. He submits that both the petitioner and the respondent No.4 were allotted equal marks i.e. 45 out of 50 in the viva-voce test and therefore, the allegation of the petitioner is completely baseless and misconceived. He submits that in fact, selection was conducted in a most fair manner and relative assessment of the candidates was made objectively. The respondent No.4 who has the experience of working in reputed institutions was considered to be suitable for the post. Therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authorities in selecting and appointing the respondent No.4 may not be interfered with by this Court. 6. Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 likewise adopts the argument of Mr. P.N .Goswami. He submits that the respondent No.4 is duly qualified for the post in terms of the criteria provided in the advertisement. He further submits that the notification by which 11 candidates were short listed for the viva-voce test is not based on a merit list. Therefore, the name of the petitioner being placed above the respondent No.4 in the said notification has no bearing with the merit of the candidates who appeared for the viva-voce test. Mr. He further submits that the notification by which 11 candidates were short listed for the viva-voce test is not based on a merit list. Therefore, the name of the petitioner being placed above the respondent No.4 in the said notification has no bearing with the merit of the candidates who appeared for the viva-voce test. Mr. Kataki further submits that the respondent No.4 in fact has vast experience as a correspondent of both print and audio visual media. The selection committee upon assessing the merit of each of the candidates awarded the highest marks to the respondent No.4 and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the selection process and the writ petition being without any merit should be dismissed. 7. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties. 8. In so far as the marks secured by the rival parties in the viva-voce is concerned, the petitioner raises no dispute but however, Mr. P. Sarma has mainly based his argument on the respondent No.4 not having fulfilled the prescribed qualification in the advertisement dated 30.05.2016 i.e. working knowledge in reputed University or other similarly placed institutions. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in their affidavit-in-opposition have annexed the evaluation sheet of the 11 candidates who participated in the viva-voce test. In so far as the academic qualification of the candidates is concerned, the petitioner was given 15 marks whereas the respondent No.4 got 14 marks. For proficiency in Computer/ Micro Soft Office, the petitioner was given 16.5 marks while the respondent No.4 was given 21 marks. As may be noticed, although the rival parties were given similar marks in viva-voce test i.e. 45 marks each and it is only in respect of the experience the petitioner was given 2 marks while the respondent No.4 was given 5 marks by the Selection Board. The stipulation as per the advertisement on experience was working knowledge in reputed University or other similarly placed institutions. The criteria in my considered opinion, cannot be limited only to experience of working in reputed University, inasmuch as, the option of having experience in other similarly placed institutions have been provided. From the instructions received and produced by Mr. The stipulation as per the advertisement on experience was working knowledge in reputed University or other similarly placed institutions. The criteria in my considered opinion, cannot be limited only to experience of working in reputed University, inasmuch as, the option of having experience in other similarly placed institutions have been provided. From the instructions received and produced by Mr. P.N. Goswami from the University vide communication dated 14.07.2018 on the experience of the respondent No.4, the petitioner's association with the Assam Tribune was also considered to be an experience in reputed institutions, as it not only served the common and intellectual section of the State but also served the region and the nation as a whole. 9. While considering the experience of the respondent No.4, it may importantly be noticed that the petitioner himself does not have working experience in any University but was employed as a Research Scientists in North Eastern Space Application Centre in Meghalaya for about 3 years. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the petitioner cannot claim to have the prescribed criteria as stipulated in the advertisement dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure-A) and claim preference over the respondent No.4. 10. It is a well settled principle of law that unless one is able to show that there was arbitrary and illegal consideration made by the Selection Committee which is perverse and defies logic in arriving at its recommendation, judicial intervention will not be justified. This is because the Selection Committee is primarily the one to have the expertise in screening and selecting eligible candidates. Therefore, it is not for the Court to substitute the view taken by the Selection Committee with its views. Thus, the allotment of 5 marks to the respondent No.4 by the Selection Committee in the viva-voce test compared to the 2 marks allotted to the petitioner in my considered opinion cannot be said to be arbitrary, unfounded or irrational. 11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. In the given circumstance, the parties are directed to bear their own cost.