IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
Swapan Gogoi S/o- Jaykanta Gogoi –Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by Its Commissioner and Secretary, Deptt of Higher Education and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/9337 of 2019
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Appointment – For setting aside appointment of Respondent to post of Library Dibrugarh and also for a direction to Respondents to grant to Petitioner and to appoint Petitioner to post of Library Assistant - Rules of the game, meaning thereby that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced. [Para 11]
Finding of the court: There is no mention in the said advertisement as regards the criteria which shall be adopted for awarding the marks. It is not in dispute that prior to issuance of advertisement, a guideline bearing was issued – Perusal of said guideline stipulates that matter was examined and fresh guidelines were issued for holding selection to various post including Library Assistant in supersession of Circular issued so far by the Director of Higher Education, Assam which included the guidelines issued vide the Communication – It was further mentioned, that Colleges, which by time had held selection should re-advertise the post again, those already applied and participated need not apply again and stipulation should be inserted in advertisement.
Results: Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and 2 and Mr.A. Sarma. the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for setting aside the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 to the post of Library Assistant in D.H.S.K. Commerce College, Dibrugarh and also for a direction to the Respondents to grant 5 marks to the Petitioner and to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Library Assistant in the said college.
3. The facts of the instant case is that the Petitioner passed out the H.S.L.C. Examination in the year 1992 and thereafter in the year 1994 the Petitioner passed his Higher Secondary Examination (Sc.) and finally completed his B.A. Examination in the year 2000 from the Dibrugarh University. In the meantime, the Petitioner also completed Diploma Course in computer application in the year 2001. In the year 2014, the Petitioner was appointed as Library Assistant on temporary basis.
4. An advertisement was published from eligible candidates having experience for the post of Library Assistant by the Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner applied for the post of Library Assistant in pursuance to the said advertisement and was issued a call letter dated 30/10/2017 asking the Petitioner to appear in the written test held on 19/10/2017 with Roll No. LA-22. The Petitioner appeared in the interview and the Respondent No. 3 issued a letter dated 16/2/2019 asking the Petitioner to appear for the computer test on 3/3/2019. The Petitioner duly appeared in the computer test. The Petitioner and the Respondent No.4 was awarded 72.5 marks and 76.5 marks respectively by the Selection Committee and thereupon the Respondent No.4 was selected and appointed to the post of Library Assistant. Being aggrieved as not selected and appointed to the post of Library Assistant, the Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. At the stage, it is relevant to take note of that a perusal of the writ petition would show that it is the case of the Petitioner that there is a guideline dated 2/2/2017 for selection of Grade –III post and in terms with the said guidelines, 5 marks were earmarked for experience i.e. one mark for one year experience. The case of the Petitioner is that, from a perusal of Annexure-6 annexed to the writ petition which is a tabulation of the various candidates who appeared in the written examination for the post of Library Assistant; no marks has been awarded on the ground of experience in terms with the guideline dated 2/2/2017 and it is the case of the Petitioner that if 5 marks would have been awarded to the Petitioner, the Petitioner would have secured more marks than the Respondent No. 4 and would have been consequently selected and appointed.
6. The Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit in opposition. In the said affidavit in opposition, it has been mentioned that the selection to the post of Library Assistant in the D.H.S.K. Commerce College was mainly assessed under three heads –(a) marks obtained on academic qualification, (b) marks obtained in written test and (c) marks obtained in computer typing test by the candidates. It was also mentioned that vide a Communication bearing DHE/CE/Misc/341/2016/12 dated 29/4/2017, the guidelines/Notification dated 2/2/2017 was superseded and as such the question of granting marks on the basis of experience in terms with the guidelines dated 2/2/2017 did not arise.
7. The Respondent no. 4 had also filed an affidavit in opposition adopting a similar stand to the stand taken by the Respondent No. 2. It is also relevant to take note of that in the said affidavit in opposition filed by the Respondent No. 4, it was mentioned that on 9/3/2017, an advertisement was issued for filling up of two posts of Junior A
Deepak Agarwal and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
K.Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Bhim Rao Mandve and Ors.
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi
State of Tripura and Ors. Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty and Ors.
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.