Back
2009 Supreme(Gau) 255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
Ganesh Chandra Likharu – Appellant
Vs.
State of Assam and Anr. – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) 448 of 2009
Decided On: 21.04.2009
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, R. Chetri, R. Dev and R. Islam, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.C., G.U., M. Sarma and D. Dutta, Advs.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the qualifications and eligibility criteria outlined in the advertisement for recruitment, and upheld the selection process based on the candidate's experience meeting the specified requirements.
Headnote:
Recruitment Process - Gauhati University - Advertisement dated 20.8.08 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Advertisement dated 20.8.08 - Summary: The court discussed the challenge to the recruitment process on the grounds of candidate qualifications, deferment of interview, and selection process. The court analyzed the experience of the selected candidate and the validity of the selection process. The legal provisions of the advertisement dated 20.8.08 were interpreted to determine the eligibility of the candidates and the justification for the selection of the appointed candidate.
Fact of the Case:
The cases pertained to the recruitment process and appointment to the post of Treasurer at Gauhati University. The petitioners challenged the selection process and appointment of the selected candidate, citing issues with qualifications and deferment of the interview.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the candidature of one petitioner was justified due to failure to submit a No Objection Certificate from the employer. The court also ruled that the selection process was not vitiated by the university's refusal to defer the interview due to the petitioner's injury. Additionally, the court determined that the selected candidate's experience met the eligibility criteria, and the challenge to the recruitment process was dismissed.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the candidates' qualifications, the refusal to defer the interview, and the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: The rejection of a candidate's candidature due to failure to submit a No Objection Certificate was justified. The university's refusal to defer the interview did not vitiate the selection process. The selected candidate's experience met the eligibility criteria, and the challenge to the recruitment process was dismissed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding them without legal merit, and recalled the interim orders passed by the court.
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. All these three cases pertain to the recruitment process and appointment to the post of Treasurer, Gauhati University in pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.8.08 and at the request of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties the 3 cases have been analogously heard and are being disposed of by the following common order.
2. Mr. S. Haque, learned Counsel appears for the writ Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 217/09 and W.P. (C) No. 1187/09. Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appears for the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 448/09. The selected candidate Bishnu Pada Chakraborty is represented by Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior Counsel and the Gauhati University is represented by the learned Standing counsel Mr. L.P. Sarma.
3. Assailing the selection of Respondent No. 3 for the post, Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel representing the candidate Ganesh Chandra Likharu contends that the Respondent No. 3 does not fulfill the experience qualification prescribed in the advertisement dated 20.8.08 as he did not have the requisite years of experience and accordingly the selection of Respondent No. 3 for the post of Treasurer is contended to be illegal.
4. The learned Counsel also submits that the Gauhati University ought to have acceded to the request made by the Petitioner on 5.12.08 to defer the scheduled interview from 10.12.08 to Anr. date, as the Petitioner, because of injury suffered in an accident, could not appear in the interview on the said date and since because of this the writ Petitioner could not participate in the interview despite receiving the call letter, the recruitment process stands vitiated and an order for holding the fresh recruitment process is called for.
5. It is also contended by Mr. Goswami that the candidature of the writ Petitioner is far superior to the selected candidate (Respondent No. 3) and as such the selection of Respondent No. 3 cannot be said to be justified and accordingly it is submitted that the appointment of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Treasurer in the Gauhati University should be set aside.
6. Mr. L.P. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the University submits that in pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.8.08, 9 applications were received and after scrutiny of the applications, only 4 candidates were found to have been eligible to sit for the selection. Accordingly call letters were issued to 4 of the 9 applicants, scheduling the interview on 10.12.08. Of these four, 3 candidates participated in the selection process which was conducted by a high level Selection Committee constituted for the purpose and on the basis of their recommendation, offer of appointment dated 23.1.09 was issued to Bishnu Pada Chakraborty. It is also submitted that only because of the Interim order passed by this Court on 16.2.09, the appointee has not so far joined in the post.
7. Defending the recruitment process and the selection Mr. Sarma submits that, the request of the writ Petitioner to defer the scheduled interview could not be acceded by the University inasmuch as the request for presence of the Members of the Selection Committee on the scheduled date of interview was already issued on 28.11.08, before the Petitioner's application (dated 5.12.08) was received by the Gauhati University. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma contends that the writ Petitioner cannot have a grievance against the selection process, merely because his request for deferment of viva voce test could not be acceded to by the University.
8. The learned Counsel further submits that the Gauhati University had already filed a Misc. Application for vacating the interim order dated 16.2.09 passed in Misc. Case No. 366/09, as the non-appointment of the Treasurer has led to serious administrative difficulties for the University as the post of Treasurer is currently being manned by a reluctant Professor of the Commerce Deptt. who is having to discharge the duties of Treasurer of the University, in the absence of a Treasurer.
9. Th
