Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 810 (GAU)

APPSC v. Hibu Tapa

2025-05-16

BUDI HABUNG, SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2025
JUDGMENT : SK Medhi, J. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) against a judgment and order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in WP(C)/376/2022. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioners (2 in nos.), who have been arrayed as the respondents, is that a recruitment process was initiated vide an advertisement dated 11.03.2020 for filling up of 21 nos. of posts of Sr. Personal Assistant (SPA). 3. It is the projected case in the writ petition that 1397 nos. of candidates had applied for the aforesaid posts of SPA, including the writ petitioners. There was a Recruitment Test Examination held on 28.11.2021 in which, the writ petitioners along with 263 other candidates were qualified for Stenography Speed Test and accordingly, Call Letters were issued to them. In the said Stenography Speed Test, the writ petitioners were the only candidates who had qualified as per the results declared vide notification dated 03.06.2022. The written examination was accordingly scheduled thereafter on 30.08.2022 and Call Letters were issued. The writ petitioners had appeared in the written examination and were found to be qualified to appear in the viva-voce which was scheduled on 27.09.2022. However, the said process was initially put to a halt by the APPSC citing administrative reason and thereafter vide the impugned notification dated 30.09.2022, the recruitment process as such, was cancelled. It is the validity and correctness of the aforesaid decision which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. 4. The Hon’ble Single Judge, by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.06.2024 had held that the reasons cited for such action was not relevant and germane and therefore, the action was interfered with and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. 5. We heard Shri A Apang, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N Anju, learned counsel for the APPSC, who has produced the original records of the Commission in terms of the earlier order of this Court dated 06.05.2025. We have also heard Shri H Lampu, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners. 6. Shri Apang, learned Senior Counsel for the APPSC has submitted that there was no mala fide involved in taking the decision of cancellation by the notification dated 30.09.2022 and it was to be taken to maintain a free and fair process in conducting examinations by the APPSC. 6. Shri Apang, learned Senior Counsel for the APPSC has submitted that there was no mala fide involved in taking the decision of cancellation by the notification dated 30.09.2022 and it was to be taken to maintain a free and fair process in conducting examinations by the APPSC. It has been specifically argued that during the said period, there were a number of complaints in conducting examinations by the APPSC and those complaints were pointed towards a particular Deputy Secretary-cum- Comptroller of Examination. He has also submitted that on verifications, many of such complaints were found to be with materials and accordingly, the aforesaid recruitment processes had to be cancelled. In the contemporaneous period, present process was also involved and to maintain all fairness and also the reputation of the APPSC, the decision of cancelling the aforesaid recruitment process was taken. It is submitted that apart from the aforesaid issue, there was another issue that certain questions were framed with wrong answer keys and the same was also one of the reasons for taking the impugned decision of cancellation. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the APPSC has submitted that the Commission has the powers to cancel any examination as per the settled law and the only requirement is that there has to be reasons which are appealable to a prudent man. He has submitted that the reasons cited are germane and bona fide which were not appreciated by the Hon’ble Single Judge leading to allowing the writ petition. 8. Per contra, Shri Lampu, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners has submitted that the cancellation was done in a mechanical manner and only because of the involvement of a particular official of the APPSC in the present process, the said process itself could not have been cancelled in absence of any specific complaints. So far as the wrong answer keys are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no advantage of any nature was gained by his clients and it was a general phenomenon faced by all the candidates for which, his clients should not be victimized. So far as the wrong answer keys are concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no advantage of any nature was gained by his clients and it was a general phenomenon faced by all the candidates for which, his clients should not be victimized. It is submitted that the recruitment process was fairly conducted in which, 1397 candidates had applied and by undergoing of the process, only his clients has reached the stage of viva-voce and therefore, the process is liable to be brought to a logical conclusion and the aforesaid recruitment made in accordance with law. 9. The rival submissions have been considered and the materials available on record, including the records in original placed before us have been carefully examined. 10. Before we venture to go into the rival submissions, we have to remind ourselves that the present is an intra-court appeal wherein the scope of interference is restricted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company , reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340 , such interference has been held to be limited and only when the conclusion reached by the Hon’ble Single Judge is wholly unreasonable and perverse to the materials on record such interference may be called for. For ready reference, the relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is extracted hereinbelow: “4……….Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 11. With regard to the issue involved, we have noted that the Hon’ble Single Judge has dealt with the issue elaborately and for ready reference, the findings given in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow: “9. It is a fact that in pursuant to the Advertisement No. PSC-R(A)/05/2020, dated 11.03.2020, issued by the Joint Secretary-cum-CoE, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Itanagar, the present 2 (two) petitioners, along with 1397 other aspiring candidates, applied for the post of SPA. It is a fact that in pursuant to the Advertisement No. PSC-R(A)/05/2020, dated 11.03.2020, issued by the Joint Secretary-cum-CoE, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Itanagar, the present 2 (two) petitioners, along with 1397 other aspiring candidates, applied for the post of SPA. It is also seen that and on the basis of the Recruitment Test Examination held on 28.11.2021, total 255 numbers of candidates were qualified for Stenography Speed Test Examination. And, thereafter, out of the said 255 candidates shortlisted for Stenography Test held on 07.05.2022 & 08.05.2022, 2 (two) candidates, i.e. the present petitioners, were qualified for Written Examination and on the basis of their performance in the Written Examination, they were selected for Interview/Viva Voce Test, which was scheduled to be held on 27.09.2022. Further, it is also an admitted fact that Shri Taket Jerang, the then Deputy Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, was arrested in connection with the 2024:GAU-AP:475 Page No.# 7/8 paper leakage of Assistant Engineer (Civil) Examination, 2021. However, the respondents failed to produce any documents to substantiate their plea that there was any leakage of paper or other irregularity while conducing the recruitment test, written examination and speed test of stenography for the post of SPA. It may be a fact that the said Shri Taket Jerang, the then Deputy Secretary-cum-Controller of Examination, had also conducted the recruitment process of SPA, but that cannot be the only ground to cancel the entire process for recruitment unless there is any proof or any evidence that there was also leakage of paper or any other misconduct while conducting the process of recruitment for the post of SPA. 10. Further it is seen that as per the Advertisement dated 11.03.2020, the applications were sought from the eligible candidate for filling up the post of 21 numbers of SPA and after the entire process of examination, only 2 (two) candidates, i.e. the present petitioners, were qualified for the Interview/Viva Voce Test and thus, the APPSC has to conduct fresh examination to fill up the 19 numbers of vacant post of SPA. But the grounds, which were brought by the respondents, cannot be a reasonable ground for cancellation of the entire recruitment process, which was conducted in pursuant to the Advertisement dated 11.03.2020.” 12. Shri Apang, learned Senior Counsel has strenuously urged that the powers of the Commission cannot be questioned to cancel any examination. But the grounds, which were brought by the respondents, cannot be a reasonable ground for cancellation of the entire recruitment process, which was conducted in pursuant to the Advertisement dated 11.03.2020.” 12. Shri Apang, learned Senior Counsel has strenuously urged that the powers of the Commission cannot be questioned to cancel any examination. While we are of the opinion that the APPSC would have the power to cancel any examination or recruitment process, there has to be a reasonable ground which appeals to a prudent person and such cancellation process cannot be taken up mechanically or at a drop of hat on certain trivial grounds. Ultimately, a recruitment involves not only huge expenses touching upon the State exchequer but also the efforts of the APPSC and the candidates. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Singe Judge in WP(C)/376/2022 needs no interference and we affirm the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14. Since the instant appeal has been dismissed and there was no stay order operating, the directions given by the Hon’ble Single Judge be complied with and the recruitment process initiated vide the advertisement dated 11.03.2020 be brought to a logical conclusion expeditiously and preferably within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The original records are handed over to Ms. Anju, learned counsel assisting the learned Senior Counsel for the APPSC.