Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 835 (GAU)

Rubu Munya D/o Late Rubu Tadu v. State of A. P.

2025-05-21

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2025
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. 6(six) numbers of petitioners have joined altogether in filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.02.2024, issued by the Secretary (Health & Family Welfare), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby a recommendation was made for re-examination of selection process in respect of Nursing Officer (contractual) at Gyati Taka General Hospital, Ziro. The petitioners have taken the ground that such recommendation of re-examination has been done in a mechanical manner which has not only affected the rights of the petitioners, who are selected candidates, but the same is also in contrary to public interest. 2. As per the facts projected, on 18.07.2023, the Mission Director, National Health Mission (NHM), issued an advertisement for filling up certain numbers of posts of contractual Nursing Officers in various hospitals across the State, including 7 (seven) numbers of posts at Gyati Taka General Hospital, Ziro. The petitioners, who were eligible for such appointment, had participated in the recruitment process and the written test was held on 21.08.2023 and in the results declared on 22.08.2023, the petitioners were held to be qualified for the next stage involving skill test, i.e. Objective Structured Practical Examination (Competency Based Skilled Test). Upon successful completion of the skill test held on 23.08.2023, the petitioners were amongst the selected candidates for appointment to the said posts. However, just prior to declaration of the said results, a representation was submitted by a student union alleging malpractices in the recruitment process, which however was pertaining to another district, namely, Upper Subansiri District. Thereafter, another representation was submitted on 29.08.2023 by the All Arunachal Pradesh Unemployed Nursing Association whereby certain irregularities were alleged in the selection process. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the allegations were vague and no specific instance was revealed in the said representation. Pursuant thereto, the Mission Director, NHM initially issued an order dated 24.08.2023 putting on hold the recruitment process, which was followed by an order dated 29.08.2023 from the Department to the concerned Deputy Commissioners to submit reports on the recruitment process. The petitioners have also brought on record a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, dated 29.08.2023, wherein it was stated that the recruitment examination was conducted in a free and fair manner. The petitioners have also brought on record a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, dated 29.08.2023, wherein it was stated that the recruitment examination was conducted in a free and fair manner. However, in spite of their being no adverse reports so far as conducting the examination pertaining to the Gyati Taka General Hospital, Ziro, the impugned order has been passed on 27.02.2024 by the Department recommending re-examination of the selection process. The ground so assigned in the impugned order was that the ratio of 1:3 was not maintained. It is this decision which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Shri D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department as well as Ms. T. Wangmu, learned State Counsel. 5. Shri D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the recruitment process for the 7 (seven) contractual posts of Nursing Officer at Gyati Taka General Hospital, Ziro, in which the petitioners, along with others, participated, was conducted strictly in accordance with the due process of law and in a fair and transparent manner. He has submitted that all the steps pertaining to the aforesaid recruitment were duly fulfilled, which included a written examination followed by skill test, and upon successful completion thereof, the petitioners were selected for appointment. He has also contended that though a student union had submitted a representation on 22.08.2023, the same was pertaining to another district and not concerning the hospital in which the petitioners were found to be eligible for appointment. He has also submitted that so far as the representation by the Nursing Association is concerned, the same was a vague representation without any specific instance of irregularities. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 on the ground that the same was passed not on the ground of any malpractice or gross irregularity, but only on the ground that the prescribed ratio of 1:3 was not followed so far as the hospital in question is concerned. He has submitted that the Rules holding the filed do not even provide for maintaining such ratio and the same stems only from an instruction dated 14.08.2023 whereby such a guideline has been provided. He has submitted that the Rules holding the filed do not even provide for maintaining such ratio and the same stems only from an instruction dated 14.08.2023 whereby such a guideline has been provided. He has submitted that providing for a particular ratio is only in the interest of public so that maximum participation can be done. He has submitted that so far as the present case is concerned, there were admittedly 7 (seven) numbers of vacancies and as per the ratio, 21 persons should have been called for, however it is on record that as many as 35 candidates were found eligible and participated in the recruitment process. He accordingly submits that the requirement of following a fair and transparent method in public recruitment was adhered to inasmuch as there was wide participation which was even more than the ratio and therefore, the same could not have been a reason for recommending a re-examination. 7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Arabinda Rabha & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2019 (4) GLT 223 . By referring to the observation made in paragraph No. 29 of the said judgment, the learned counsel has clarified that in that case the number of candidates called for was less than the ratio prescribed and in spite of the same, this Court had observed that such non-adherence would not be fatal to the recruitment process. He has reiterated that in the present case, the number of candidates is even more than the prescribed ratio and therefore, the same cannot be a reason at all for taking the impugned decision. 8. Shri Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further informed this Court that though the tenure of the appointment, as per the advertisement, was fixed for period of 1 (one) year, the candidates who were appointed in other districts pursuant to the same recruitment process have been allowed to continue in service beyond the initial tenure and therefore there is full scope of the Department to consider the case of the petitioners for their appointment. 9. Shri Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, has however defended the impugned action by submitting that the same is not based on any mala fide and is taken on bona fide consideration as there has been infraction of the instructions dated 14.08.2023. 9. Shri Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, has however defended the impugned action by submitting that the same is not based on any mala fide and is taken on bona fide consideration as there has been infraction of the instructions dated 14.08.2023. He has submitted that the instructions prescribed for maintaining a ratio of 1:3 was admittedly not done in the present case. He has submitted that 21 numbers of candidates should have been held eligible as the vacancies were 7 (seven) in numbers and instead 35 numbers were held to be eligible to participate. He has otherwise not raised any other issue regarding allegation of any malpractice in the recruitment process. 10. Ms. Wangmu, learned State Counsel, has endorsed to the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department. 11. The rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 12. The facts which have been elaborately stated above would reveal that so far as the Gyati Taka General Hospital, Ziro is concerned, there were 7 (seven) numbers of posts which were to be filled up. Though there appears to have been certain expressions of resentment and allegations pertaining to the recruitment process, the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 is not based on any allegation of malpractice or procedural irregularity in the selection process. Rather, the sole ground for recommending a re-examination pertains to the alleged non-maintenance of the 1:3 ratio. This Court has also noted that in the impugned order, there is a specific finding that there was no concrete and relevant material of infirmity. 13. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the aspect of maintaining a ratio of 1:3 is not a statutory requirement but is only as per an instruction dated 14.08.2023. Without even going to the aspect as to how much enforceable such instructions would be, this Court is of the view that the objective of maintaining a ratio is only to ensure wide participation in a recruitment process so as to maintain a fair and equal opportunity to have the best from the lot. Without even going to the aspect as to how much enforceable such instructions would be, this Court is of the view that the objective of maintaining a ratio is only to ensure wide participation in a recruitment process so as to maintain a fair and equal opportunity to have the best from the lot. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the infraction of the aspect of ratio is not because of the total number of candidates being less than the prescribed ratio, but of the total number being more than the prescribed ratio. By such participation, the objective of prescribed in a ratio would not be defeated and would rather fulfill the said objective. As already noted above, the impugned order itself states that there is no other evidence of any infirmity or irregularity in the recruitment process. 14. In the case of Arabinda Rabha (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has noted that the infraction of ratio was held to be a mere deviation which would not vitiate the recruitment process. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: “29. As regards the non-conformity of ratio of candidates called for interview, though it can be said to be an irregularity, but the question is whether such irregularity itself will be sufficient to vitiate the selection process. It may be mentioned that adhering to certain ratio for calling of candidates for interview is to ensure equitable opportunities to the candidate for assessment and so that deserving candidates are not unduly deprived of. In the present case, it has been noted that the variation in the ratio is not substantial to be considered unreasonable. Hence, merely because the ratio has not strictly adhered, that cannot be a ground for setting aside the recruitment process.” It may be mentioned that in the said case, the number of candidates who had participated was less than the prescribed ratio and even thereafter the observations, as noted above, had been made. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds cited in the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 is unsustainable and cannot be regarded as a ground for recommending a re-examination of the selection process. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds cited in the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 is unsustainable and cannot be regarded as a ground for recommending a re-examination of the selection process. It is needless to state that in a recruitment process, apart from the efforts of the aspiring candidates as well as of the recruitment agency, there is involvement of huge amount of public exchequer and unless there are compelling reasons, such recruitment process is required to be brought to a logical conclusion and not abandoned or cancelled on trivial grounds. 16. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that a case for interference has been made out and therefore the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 is set aside. It is needless to state that the present interference is only pertaining to Gyati Taka General Hospital, Ziro. Insofar as the issue of appointment of the petitioners is concerned, it is observed that similarly situated candidates, who were selected pursuant to the same recruitment drive in other districts, have been allowed to continue in service. Accordingly, respondent authorities shall consider this aspect and take appropriate steps in accordance with law, keeping in mind the principles of parity and fair treatment. 17. The writ petition is accordingly stands allowed.