Point of Law: State respondents could not justify cancellation of earlier selection process made in terms of Employment Notice, by publishing a new advertisement for same post, as selection process had been completed and only thing that remained was issuance of appointment order.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R.C. Borpatra Gohain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for Oil India Limited.

2. The petitioner’s case in brief is that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 29.11.2018, issued by the Oil India Limited, for recruitment to the post of Superintending Medical Officer (Gynaecology), the petitioner applied for the said post. The marks allotted in the selection process, as reflected in the Advertisement dated 29.11.2018 were as follows :

3. The petitioner took part in the Written Test on 17.03.2019 and secured 51 marks in the Written Test. The Personal Interview was held on 07.06.2019 and the petitioner secured 5 marks in the interview. No Group Discussion was held by the respondents. The petitioner thereafter undertook the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) on 10.06.2019 in terms of the extract of Clause – B of the Advertisement dated 29.11.2018, which states as follows :

“The provisionally selected candidate will have to undergo Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME) by OIL Medical Board and appointment will be issued to the provisionally selected candidate subject to being found medically fit by OIL Medical Board.”

The petitioner’s health was also found to be fit for appointment in the PEME.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner was the lone candidate, who had taken part in the Personal Interview and in the PEME. The petitioner having secured the qualifying marks in the written test and personal interview, the petitioner should have been appointed to the post of Superintending Medial Officer (Gynaecology). However, the respondents did not appoint the petitioner. On enquiry, the petitioner came to learn that the total marks that had been allotted for Personal Interview, had been raised by the respondents to 15 marks and the qualifying marks for Personal Interview was raised to 7.5 marks.

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the petitioner had secured the required qualifying marks, i.e. 5 marks in the interview, in terms of the Advertisement dated 29.11.2018 and as the petitioner had also been found to be fit for appointment in the PEME, appointment order should be issued by the respondents.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has been played and in this respect, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Raisul Islam & Others vs. Gokul Mohan Hazarika & Others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 560; Tez Prakash Pathak & Others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540 and the judgment of this Court passed in WP(C) 3864/2018 (Sri Jibon Kalita & Others vs. The State of Assam & 5 Others). He accordingly prays that the petitioner should be appointed to the post of Superintending Medical Officer (Gynaecology), pursuant to the Advertisement dated 29.11.2018.

7. Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for Oil India Limited submits that though the total marks provided for the Personal Interview, in terms of the Advertisement dated 29.11.2018 was 10 marks, with qualifying marks of 5, the same had to be changed in terms of the “Guidelines for Recruitment in the Executive Cadre” (herein after referred to as the “Guideline”), made by the Oil India Limited on 01.03.2016, which provides that when Group Discussion is not conducted, the marks allotted for the Group Discussion/Group Task (GD/GT) would have to be added to the marks allotted for Personal Interview. Thus, interview marks will be 15% of the total marks.

Accordingly, weightage in the selection process for the various components had to be allotted as follows :-

Written Test was to have 85% of the marks, 5% for Gro