Back
2006 Supreme(Gau) 116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
AMITAVA ROY, J.
Kishore Kalita – Appellant
Vs.
Brahmaputra Board and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 31.01.2006
The main legal point established is that in the absence of specific guidelines, an administrative body has the discretion to devise its own procedure for selection, and judicial review is limited to instances of unfairness or unreasonableness.
Headnote:
Appointment - Assistant Engineers - Brahmaputra Board - Regulation - [Regulation 2000] - The court discussed the appointment of Assistant Engineers with the Brahmaputra Board and the relevant Regulation 2000. The court analyzed the selection process, the assessment of candidates in the written examination and interview, and the discretion of the Board in devising its own procedure for selection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointments of respondent No(s). 7 and 8 as Assistant Engineers with the Brahmaputra Board, contending that their selection based on higher marks in the interview, ignoring his superior performance in the written examination, was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Board had the discretion to devise its own procedure for selection, and the assessment of candidates based only on the interview performance was not illegal, discriminatory, or unconstitutional.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the appointments of respondent No(s). 7 and 8 in relation to the selection process and the assessment criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of a prescribed procedure for assessment of candidates based on both written examination and interview, the Board had the liberty to devise its own procedure for selection.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as it lacked merit, and no costs were awarded.
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The appointments of respondent No(s). 7 and 8 as Assistant Engineers with the Brahmaputra Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) are under challenge. The contention of the petitioner in essence is that he having fared much better than the said respondents in the written examination, their selection only on the basis of the relatively higher marks obtained by them in the interview is unsustainable in law.
2. I have heard Mr. P.G. Baruah, senior advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D. Choudhury, advocate for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. D Baruah, learned Standing Counsel for the Board.
3. First the pleaded facts. The petitioner, an Engineering Graduate in the Civil discipline, in response to the advertisement published by the Board on 10.9.2003 for filling up two posts of Assistant Engineer, offered his candidature. He thereafter pursuant to the letter dated 6.2.2004 appeared in the written test and obtained 97 per cent marks. According to him, the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 could secure marks in the range of 50 per cent in the said examination. Thereafter about 40 candidates were selected for the oral interview. The petitioner being called appeared in the viva voce test on 25.11.2004. By the impugned communication dated 10.1.2005, the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were, however, appointed to the advertised posts. The petitioner has contended that on the basis of his performance in the written examination, he had been placed at Sl. No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 at Sl. Nos. 14 and 18 respectively. Thus their appointments by ignoring his superior claim is per se arbitrary, discriminatory and unsustainable.
4. In its counter, the Board has pleaded that in response to the advertisement, 166 candidates applied out of which 130 appeared in the written examination/screening test. According to it, after receiving 166 applications, it was decided to conduct a qualifying test in order to reduce the number of candidates for interview. Accordingly, only those candidates why had secured 50% in the written test were treated to have qualified for the interview. It has been maintained that the petitioner, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and other candidates securing above, the cut off percentage of marks in the screening test were called for the interview and based on the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee conducting the selection, the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were appointed. The allegation of arbitrariness and discrimination has been denied.
5. The respondent No. 7 in his affidavit while generally endorsing the stand of the Board has pleaded that he having qualified in the written test, appeared in the interview and having been appointed on being recommended, he joined the advertised post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) accordingly.
6. Mr. Barua has assertively urged that as the petitioner has performed extremely well in the written examination, the action of the Board in ignoring the marks secured by him therein for the final selection is ex facie arbitrary, unfair and unjust. The candidates having been: made to appear in the written test, their assessment only on their performance in the interview was illogical and purported and not real. According to the learned senior counsel, the mode of selection based only on the evaluation of the candidates in the viva voce test is wholly impermissible. The Board, therefore, having applied a wrong standard in making the selection, the impugned appointments of the private respondents are liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, Mr. Barua has, placed reliance on the following decisions. Ashok Kr. Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 454, Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 662, Ashok @ Somanna Gowda and Anr. v. State of Karnataka (1992) ILLJ 87 SC, Srinivasa Rao v. J Veeraiah and Ors. [1992] 2 SCR 780, Praveen Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 633 .
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board has argued pe
