IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Trishna Ngate D/o Sri Debon Ngate – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7148 of 2017
Decided On : 10-11-2021
Selection and appointment of Constable – Issue pertains to the selection and appointment of Constable which was initiated vide an advertisement - Advertisement, 2564 numbers of posts were to be filled up. It is the case of the petitioner that 40 marks were allotted for Physical Efficiency Test, 50 marks were allotted for written test and extra-curricular activities and 10 marks for special skills.
Finding of the Court:
Marks obtained by the respondent No. 4 which was 57.10 has to be reduced by 4(four) marks which will come to 53.10. Resultantly, the petitioner, who was the next candidate in the particular category of ST(P) woman, would be the last selected candidate. The writ petition stands allowed by interfering with the selection process of the respondent No. 4 by directing that based on the marks obtained by the respondent No. 4 as well as the petitioner and on inter se comparison of the marks as indicated above, the petitioner be offered the appointment to the post of Constable. Though, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4 has been set aside, considering the fact that the said respondent No. 4 has in the meantime, rendered service of around four years, if vacancy is available, without disturbing the respondent No. 4, the petitioner may be accommodated.
Result: Directions issued
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
1. Heard Shri M. Sarania, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S.S. Roy, learned State Counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the respondent No. 4 is represented by Shri N. Anand, learned counsel.
2. Considering the subject matter of dispute and the fact that the matter is pending since the year of 2017, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
3. Before going into the issue which calls for determination, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.
4. The issue pertains to the selection and appointment of Constable which was initiated vide an advertisement dated 10.12.2015. By the said advertisement, 2564 numbers of posts were to be filled up. It is the case of the petitioner that 40 marks were allotted for Physical Efficiency Test, 50 marks were allotted for written test and extra-curricular activities and 10 marks for special skills. The marks secured by the petitioner was declared to be 56.24 whereas the marks secured by the respondent No. 4 was declared to be 57.10. The respondent No. 4 was empanelled in the final merit list in the ST(P) women category and the petitioner was just before her which was published in the Assam Tribune.
5. The case projected by the petitioner is that marks have been allotted to the respondent No. 4 under the Head of extra-curricular activities and special skills, which have been given erroneously and if such marks are deducted, the petitioner would be in the final select list and therefore be eligible to be appointed. Shri Sarania, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the advertisement which has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. He submits that the application by the aspiring candidates was to be filled up through on-line. By drawing the attention of this Court to the extracurricular activities, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that total three marks were allotted to the category of Sports, out of which two marks would be given for national level Sports person who represents the State in any discipline recognized by the Indian Olympic Association and one mark for state level Sports persons, who has represented the District in State Level Competition and have won medals. Under clause E which deals with Proficiency in Computer under which 5 (five) marks have been allotted. In the break-up, a candidates having MCA would be given 5 (five) marks, for BCA 4 (four) marks and for 2 (two) years Diploma from any Government/UGC recognized/accredited Universities/Institutions 3 (three) marks, one year diploma from any Govt./UGC recognized/accredited Universities/Institutions 2 (two) marks and have minimum six months course in Computer from any Govt./UGC recognized/accredited Universities/ Institutions 1 (one) mark.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as recorded above is that the marks have been given to the respondent No. 4 under the aforesaid Heads which otherwise is not entitled to by her. To substantiate the allegation, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 3, who is the Chairman of the State Level Police Recruitment Board with which the Certificates of both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 have been annexed. By referring to the Annexure E of the said affidavit-in-opposition filed on 26.02.2019, Shri Sarania, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said annexure is a Diploma of the respondent No. 4 regarding two years in Computer Diploma Examination and admittedly, the said certificate was issued on 14.12.2016.
7. Apart from seriously contending the authenticity of the Institute namely, Rural Development Mission (RDM), Shri Sarania submits that even assuming that the certificate is an authentic one, the same qualification is obtained after the last date of submission of forms as per the advertisement dated 30.12.201
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.