Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1106 (GAU)

Anup Deka v. State of Assam

2019-09-26

PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. Heard, Mr. A Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Goswami, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. The Deputy Director of Economics and Statistics, Nalbari published an advertisement on 08.08.2014 for filling up the existing vacant post of Junior Assistant in the office of the Deputy Director of Economics and Statistics, Nalbari, the respondent No. 5 who as per the requirement of the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class-III and Class IV Posts) Rules, 1997 vide office memorandum dated 23.09.2014 constituted a five member District Level Selection Committee (DLSC) for selection of a suitable candidate for the said vacant post i.e. the respondent No. 5 along with private respondent Nos. 6,7 and 9 and another Sri Anupjyoti Bora as the Member Secretary. The petitioner applied for the said post and call letter dated 20.102014 was issued by the respondent No. 5 requiring the petitioner to appear in the written test to be held on 09.11.2014 under the allotted Roll No. 154. The result of the written test was published by the respondent No. 5 vide notice dated 12.12.2014. In the said notice leaving aside the petitioner as many as fourteen number of candidates qualified for participating in the viva-voce and computer typing test to be held on 23.12.2014. The petitioner appeared and participated in both the tests. The petitioner came across a newspaper report dated 16.05.2015 published in the local vernacular Assamese newspaper "Dainik Agradoot" wherein it is stated that as three members of the selection committee refused to put their signatures upon the final result sheet and had sealed the said result sheet in an envelope, the result of the said test could not be declared and the respondent No. 5 intimated the said fact to the higher authorities for seeking assistance. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition for appropriate direction to the respondents to declare the result pertaining to the selection of the sanction vacant post of Junior Assistant in the office of the respondent No. 5. 3. The Director of Economics and Statistics, Assam, respondent no. 4 filed his affidavit-in- opposition. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition for appropriate direction to the respondents to declare the result pertaining to the selection of the sanction vacant post of Junior Assistant in the office of the respondent No. 5. 3. The Director of Economics and Statistics, Assam, respondent no. 4 filed his affidavit-in- opposition. Admitting the fact of holding the written test, viva-voce and computer typing test, the respondent No. 4 in the affidavit-in-opposition as per available records summarised the cause in not declaring the result as follows: "..As regards to evaluation of answer scripts the following facts have been revealed from the available records: (i) It revealed from the letter vide No. ORD-12/2014/624 dated 05.12.2014 wrote by the Employment Officer, Nalbari cum Member of DLSC, Nalbari to the Deputy Director of Economics and Statistics, Nalbari & Chairman DLSC in connection with the Memo No. 441/2014/JA/457-466-A dated 28.11.2014[the letter was issued by the Deputy Director cum Member Secretary in connection with entrusting answer scripts evaluation work to the officials of the office of the Deputy Director of Economics and Statistics, Nalbari and to complete the process urgently by 1.12.2014] that: (a) On completion of the written examination the answer scripts were properly sealed and kept in the safe custody of Treasury Officer, Nalbari; (b) As per verbal discussion the decision for evaluation and the process of evaluation of answer scripts was to be taken in the meeting of DLSC, Nalbari as process was to be done at DC Office, Nalbari under the supervision of DC's nominee. (c) But the decision of evaluation/ checking of answer scripts was taken by the Deputy Director & Chairman of DLSC, Nalbari alone without informing the members of DLSC or without conducting any meeting which was an act of violation of protocol; (d) The Deputy Director and Chairman DLSC, Nalbari without assigning any reason also issued order vide No. 441/2014/JA/457-466 dated 5.12.2014 to the officials of his office to complete the evaluation/ checking works urgently within 01.12.2014 although the Govt. of Assam has fixed date of all appointment on or before 31st December, 2014. of Assam has fixed date of all appointment on or before 31st December, 2014. (ii) In the report submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari vide letter No. ORD-12/2014/260 dated 27.04.2014, the Members of the DLSC, Nalbari stated that as per the discussion of the meeting held at the office Chamber of the Deputy Director of Economics and Statistics, Nalbari last, some major anomalies/ discrepancies on the part of the Chairman and also on the part of Member Secretary regarding evaluation of answer scripts and computer typing test were observed by them in selection of candidates: (a) The evaluation was done only by the Chairman and Member Secretary without the knowledge of other members of the DLSC; (b) No print copy of type test was collected by the Chairman and Member Secretary though it was repeatedly asked to collect by the Members. Hence, correct evaluation could not be done. (iii) Another Revelation came to light from the letter of Shri Anupjyoti Bora, Statistical Officer & Member Secretary of DLSC, Nalbari addressed to the Director of Economics and Statistics, Assam dated 07.08.2015 that: (a) Although Shri Bora was notified as Member Secretary, he was not aware of the selection related activities. Most of the procedures was undertaken by the Chairman cum Deputy Director of Economics and Statistics, Nalbari, Shri Tarun Chandra Sarma and Senior Assistant Mr. Rohini Deka. Shri Bora was aware of the DLSC Meetings because the Chairman of the Committee informed him officially about the meetings and he attended accordingly. (b) After completion of the written examination on 09.11.2014, the answer scripts were taken to the Treasury Office, Nalbari. After same days, the Chairman of the DLSC and Deputy Director, Mr. Tarun Chandra Sarma had taken out the answer scripts from Treasury Office, Nalbari for the purpose of evaluation without any members' presence. From the above facts it is seen that in respect of conducting the evaluation process of answer scripts the role the Deputy Director cum Chairman DLSC, Nalbari was not transparent. The Deputy Director cum Chairman DLSC, Nalbari did not take the Members and Member Secretary of the DLSC in trust and thus violated the protocol of the august body (DLSC) for which it was constituted." 4. Mr. The Deputy Director cum Chairman DLSC, Nalbari did not take the Members and Member Secretary of the DLSC in trust and thus violated the protocol of the august body (DLSC) for which it was constituted." 4. Mr. Biswas submits that though the petitioner has no right in order to seek for a direction to the respondent authorities to declare the result, however, a duty is cast upon the respondents if any anomalies crept in the selection processes after removing the same, if the same is not in the form of major anomalies declare the result keeping in view the expectation of the petitioner and the other similarly situated candidates who participated in the selection process. Merely at the whims the respondent authority cannot scuttle a lawful selection process on some technical fault. The respondents have no justification to deny the appointment to those selected candidates whose selection was not vitiated in any manner and to that effect Mr. Biswas relies Union of India and Others Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 285 . 5. Mr. Goswami on the other hand referred to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 4 which is a detailed one. It is his contention that as referred in the affidavit-in-opposition out of five members two members refused to examine the computer typing print out and as such there is no unanimity in the decision of the members of DLSC. For the said reason the respondent authority was handicapped in declaring the result and to that effect reasonable explanation has been made in the affidavit-in-opposition. 6. The submissions of the learned counsel are taken note of. I have perused the affidavit-in-opposition and the annexures therein. In fact the complete file regarding the selection process for filling up the post of Junior Assistant No. 85/2011/Estt-VP/119 which was opened on 31.07.2014 in the office of the respondent no. 5 annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition. On 23.09.2014 a Committee comprising of the respondent No. 5 and the private respondent Nos. 6 to 8 as the Members were formed. The respondent No. 5 is the Chairman and one Sri Anupjyoti Bora is the Member Secretary of the said Committee. The viva-voce test was held on 23.12.2014 and thereafter the marking pattern was finalised in the meeting presided over by the respondent no. 5 as the Chairman, DLSC, Nalbari. 6 to 8 as the Members were formed. The respondent No. 5 is the Chairman and one Sri Anupjyoti Bora is the Member Secretary of the said Committee. The viva-voce test was held on 23.12.2014 and thereafter the marking pattern was finalised in the meeting presided over by the respondent no. 5 as the Chairman, DLSC, Nalbari. In the said meeting the DLSC resolved to increase the marks from 15 to 25 for viva-voce test and modified the marks for the viva-voce test as 25. But the marks for the computer typing test remained same i.e. 10 marks for each of the candidate and the same was unanimously resolved to accept the same in the viva-voce test for the post of Junior Assistant. All the members of the DLSC agreed to cooperate in conducting the viva-voce test and computer typing test and to declare the result accordingly. The Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari vide letter dated 28.04.2015 informed the Secretary to the Government of Assam Planning & Development Department, Dispur on the basis of the information of two members of the District Level Selection Committee who reported that major anomalies/ discrepancies were found on the part of the Chairman and also on the part of the Member Secretary of DLSC regarding the evaluation of answer scripts and computer typing test for filling up the post of Junior Assistant. The reasons were specifically stated that the evaluation was done only by the Chairman and Member Secretary without the knowledge of other members of the DLSC and no print copy of computer typing test was collected by the Chairman and Member Secretary though it was repeatedly asked to collect by the other members of DLSC and accordingly correct evaluation could not be done. On the basis of said report vide letter dated 15.05.2015 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Planning & Development Department requested the respondent No. 5 to cancel the earlier recruitment process as the same was found smack of foul play and further requested to initiate the process afresh regarding filling of the post of Junior Assistant at the earliest. 7. 7. From the anomalies as referred hereinabove the same amounts to a major one inasmuch as if the evaluation of the viva-voce test and computer typing test were not made by two members of the selection committee under such circumstances it is discernible that the said two members who opted not to evaluate the said viva-voce test and computer test must be due to some extraneous reasons. Accordingly, the anomalies cannot be by-passed and the result could be declared. For the said reason, I am constrained to dismiss this writ petition there being no merit in the claim of the petitioner. No costs.