Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 589 (CAL)

Sujit Halder v. Tea Board of India

2019-05-14

ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. In response to an advertisement issued by the Tea Board of India for the post of Development Officer the petitioner applied for the said post for being employed in that post. The petitioner was a scheduled caste candidate. He was successful in the written test for the said post and was called for the interview by Tea Board's letter dated 12th October, 2012 for appearing in the interview on 7th November, 2012. 2. The petitioner appeared in the interview along with other candidates. Thereafter the petitioner was not intimated about the result of the selection test and as he was hopeful to get the employment he sent two consecutive applications under the Right to Information Act of 2005 to the concerned Officer of the Tea Board dated 17.12.2012 and 09.01.2013 for knowing the result etc. but received no reply thereto and thereafter filed two appeals under the said Act on 02.02.2013 and 04.02.2013 to which, he alleges, also received no reply. 3. The petitioner filed the writ application for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to fill up the vacancy reserved for scheduled caste candidates and also for a mandamus for his appointment as the candidate under the scheduled caste category in the said post against the selection process. His further prayer was also to recast the select list by setting aside the final select list published by Tea Board. 4. The petitioner stated that in the interview 86 candidates were called, out of which 12 were scheduled caste in the interview list the serial No. of the petitioner was 77. In the final merit list the name of the petitioner was not included. In the final merit list 25 candidates were selected. According to him out of those 25 candidates, 23 candidates were general and 2 candidates were form Other Backward Classes category. No scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates were selected though 6 vacancies were declared for scheduled caste candidates and 3 vacancies were for scheduled tribe candidates. 5. The petitioner has submitted at the time of hearing that in the advertisement it was not stated that there will be an interview after written test for the successful candidates in written test and the marks obtained in the written test and the marks obtained in the interview will be considered together for final selection of the candidates. 5. The petitioner has submitted at the time of hearing that in the advertisement it was not stated that there will be an interview after written test for the successful candidates in written test and the marks obtained in the written test and the marks obtained in the interview will be considered together for final selection of the candidates. The petitioner further alleges that Tea Board never through the advertisement inviting application or otherwise disclosed what will be the full marks and qualifying marks for the written test and what will be the full marks and qualifying marks in the interview. 6. The petitioners further make out a case that when some vacancies were declared for reserve candidates (that is scheduled caste candidate) without filling up the vacancies by scheduled caste candidates the select list against the recruitment process cannot be published and given effect to. 7. In the course of hearing, as it was found that there was no discloser by the Tea Board as to the full marks of written examination and marks secured by the petitioner I directed the said respondent to disclose the same in writing and in compliance with the said order the said respondent intimated that full marks of written examination was 120 and marks secured by the petitioner in written examination was 63 and full marks in the interview was 100 and marks secured by the petitioner was 14.5. 8. The respondent in its affidavit-in-opposition pleaded that for reserve category candidates the qualifying marks in the interview was 55 percent whereas in unreserved category it was 60 percent. It was mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner scored 14.7 marks in the interview. 9. The respondent States that though total 41 vacancies comprising 22 vacancies for general category 6 vacancies for scheduled caste, 3 vacancies for scheduled tribe and 10 vacancies for Other Backward Classes category was prepared, only 25 candidates were successful in the selection process, out of this 25 candidates one candidate was of scheduled caste, one of scheduled tribe, 11 of other backward classes category and 12 was unreserved category candidates. It has been further sated by the respondent that out of the 13 candidates who belong to reserve category 11 was selected on merit and were appointed in general category and 2 were selected against other backward classes' category and appointed against the other Backward Classes category. It has been further sated by the respondent that out of the 13 candidates who belong to reserve category 11 was selected on merit and were appointed in general category and 2 were selected against other backward classes' category and appointed against the other Backward Classes category. The respondent has stated that subsequently, applications were further invited for the remaining posts. 10. As some clarifications were required in respect of such statements by the respondent this Court wanted certain clarifications and directed the respondent to file supplementary-affidavit which has been filed pursuant to the said direction. From the supplementary affidavit it is found that Tea board follows single point roster in respect of Development officers appointment and from the advertisement, in connection with which the petitioner appeared in the selection process, reservation was not declared separately for each region and total number of reserved posts in different categories were mentioned in the said advertisement. The reserved vacancies were six in scheduled caste category, three vacancies for scheduled tribe and eight vacancies for Other Backward Classes categories which could not be filed up against the first advertisement and were carried over in the subsequent vacancies. 11. In respect of such statement in the said supplementary-affidavit the said respondent also disclosed the relevant documents as annexures in respect of two subsequent advertisements published on 28th December, 2012 and on 9th January, 2013 (not on 9th March, 2013 as mentioned in the order of the Court dated 28th November, 2018, which was a typographical mistake). The vacancies declared in those two advertisements have been mentioned and the relevant advertisements published in the official website of the respondent have been disclosed as annexures of the said supplementary affidavit. 12. The petitioner has filed his affidavit-in-opposition to the said supplementary affidavit but has not been able to show that his result in the said recruitment process was affected adversely for committing any irregularity by the respondent. The petitioner belong to schedule caste category but he has not been able to show how, being a candidate of scheduled caste category, he became the victim of any illegality which infringed his right as a candidate. It is true that total marks of written examination and interview and the qualifying marks in written test and interview was not intimated but it was not intimated to other candidates also. It is true that total marks of written examination and interview and the qualifying marks in written test and interview was not intimated but it was not intimated to other candidates also. By such non-disclosure of full marks and qualifying marks no discrimination was caused to the petitioner as everybody who participated in the said selection process faced the same situation and there was no discrimination. The petitioner has also not alleged any discrimination. It is also true that full marks of written test and full marks of interview was highly disproportionate when compared to each other but only such disproportion cannot vitiate the selection process unless it is shown that due to such disproportion some candidates have got some undue advantage and benefit over the others. It is to be kept in mind that the interview was taken all over India. The list of interviewees contained in compilation sheets of interview marks in respect of all candidates all over the country have been disclosed in the said supplementary affidavit of the respondent. 13. In this view of the matter, order for giving appointment cannot be passed as there is no such illegality for which any right of the petitioner has been affected adversely or has been infringed by the respondent. 14. With the above observations the writ application is dismissed. No Costs.