Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 244 (GAU)

Sashankar Sonowal v. Union of India

2019-02-21

NELSON SAILO

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. S. Borpatragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner responded to the advertisement issued by the Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong in the Month of June 2011, whereby, it was provided that recruitment rally for various posts including the post of Armour, to which the petitioner applied for would be conducted from 14.9.2011 onwards. The petitioner participated in the physical test and the written test conducted and he was found to be qualified. However, in the medical examination, the petitioner was found medically unfit due to Cubitus Valgus and Cubital Recurvatum. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before Record Medical Branch of the Assam Rifles through proper channel and on the basis of his appeal, the petitioner was given another chance to appear before the Medical Board. Consequently, upon such re-examination, the petitioner was found to be fit but to the surprise of the petitioner, his name was not included in the 2nd select list prepared by the authorities. 3. Meanwhile, the petitioner again responded to the advertisement that was published on 25.9.2012 for the post of Operator Radio Line (ORL). In terms of the advertisement, the petitioner participated for the recruitment rally and qualified for the written test as well as the medical test, but when the select list was published on 20.7.2013, his name was not included. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this court. 4. Mrs. S. Borpatragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selections conducted in the year 2011 and 2012 were arbitrary as undue favour was shown to some of the candidates. She submits that the petitioner performed well in all respects in both the recruitment rally and therefore, he ought to have been selected either for the post of Armour or the post of ORL. She further submits that as per the advertisement published in the year 2011, 16 posts were reserved for candidates from the State of Assam but, however, the respondent-authorities appointed as many as 18 candidates. To substantiate her submission, the learned counsel refers to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 23.6.2015, more particularly Annexure 1 of the said affidavit and also Annexure R-4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents on 13.3.2015. To substantiate her submission, the learned counsel refers to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 23.6.2015, more particularly Annexure 1 of the said affidavit and also Annexure R-4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents on 13.3.2015. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondent-authorities have selected the candidates of their choice without adhering to the norms for a fair selection and as per the advertisement. The learned counsel lastly submits that the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was found to be low on merit is only vague since no reason has been mentioned as to how the petitioner was low on merit. Therefore, considering the arbitrary action/inaction of the respondent-authorities, suitable direction may be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner against any vacant post of Armour or ORL. In support of her submissions, Mrs. S Borpatragohain has placed reliance on the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this court on 6.8.2014 in WP(C) No. 3834/2012 (Rajani Phukon v. Union of India). 5. Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC in response to the submissions made by the learned counsel submits that there is no irregularity in the selection process conducted by the respondent-authorities. He submits that the selection was conducted strictly as per the relevant guidelines and norms and in terms of the advertisement. He submits that the petitioner was initially found to be medically unfit in the selection held in the year 2011, but subsequently, the Medical Board on re-examining the petitioner, found him to be fit. However, the petitioner could not be selected for the post of Armour since the marks secured by him did not warrant his selection. The learned CGC by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 13.3.2015 submits that the petitioner only scored 45 marks in the written examination for the post of Armour, whereas the selected candidate from Scheduled Tribe Category, which the petitioner also belongs, scored 80 marks. Therefore, the petitioner being low on merit was not selected. The learned CGC further submits that in respect of the selection process which was held in the year 2012, the petitioner was found to be fit in all respect, but again his position in the merit did not warrant his selection for the post of ORL. Therefore, the petitioner being low on merit was not selected. The learned CGC further submits that in respect of the selection process which was held in the year 2012, the petitioner was found to be fit in all respect, but again his position in the merit did not warrant his selection for the post of ORL. He submits that the petitioner scored only 43 marks in the written examination, whereas the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in the Scheduled Tribe Category scored 57 marks. Therefore, the petitioner could not be selected. Mr. B. Sarma, learned CGC has also produced the records pertaining to the selection or the recruitment rally held in the year 2011 and 2012. 6. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. I have also perused the records produced by the learned CGC as well. 7. From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition, more particularly at paragraph Nos. 9 and 15, are duly supported. The marks obtained by the petitioner and the person in the Scheduled Tribe Category, who was selected are found to be correct from the records. If the petitioner was low on merit or if there were other candidates who had scored more than the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been selected to the post in question. The allegation that the selection process was vague and arbitrary is also not supported by any materials and, therefore, court is not in a position to accept the stand taken by the petitioner. The decision of a coordinate Bench, referred by the petitioner, i.e., Rajani Phukon (supra) is clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as, in that case, the specific plea taken by the petitioners was that those who were found to be medically unfit were selected by the respondent-authorities. The specific averments made by the petitioners remain unrebutted by the respondents and, therefore, court took an adverse presumption that the averments which were not rebutted or disputed would only be deemed to be admitted in view of section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872. Such is not the case in the present writ petition. As already noticed, there were others who scored more than the petitioner and the selection being on merit, the petitioner could not be selected. 8. Such is not the case in the present writ petition. As already noticed, there were others who scored more than the petitioner and the selection being on merit, the petitioner could not be selected. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. In facts and circumstances, parties shall bear their own cost.