SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 1065

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Miss Honi Yana – Appellant
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh –Respondent
WP(C) 500 of 2018
Decided on : 10-02-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. T T Tara, Mr. K. Jini, Mr. D. Loyi, Mr. B. Picha, Mr. J. Jini, Mr. G. Bam, Mr. M. Rime, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Gimi Tarak, Mr. Khoda Tari

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 16, 226 – Legality and validity – Factual background leading to filing of present writ petition is, adumbrated – Held, It is true that facts and circumstances of case in hand in totally different from facts and circumstances of cited case. But, principle of law, regarding necessity of interview, to considered opinion of this court, is applicable to case in hand also – Therefore, holding of viva-voce test, in order to select best person from 8 eligible participants, to considered opinion of this court cannot be said to be unreasonable – Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Gimi Tarak, learned standing counsel, Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of the official respondents; and Mr. Khoda Tari, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of private Respondent No. 3.

2. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Miss Honi Yana, has put to challenge the legality and validity of the minutes, dated 25.05.2018, adopted by the Selection Committee, headed by Respondent No. 2 viz. Chairman-cum-Superintending Engineer (Coord.), Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, whereby the private respondent No. 3 has been selected to the post of Lower Division Clerk-cum-Computer Operator, under 5% sports quota as per the Guidelines, dated 04.05.1995, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi, thereby overlooking the qualifications of the petitioner.

3. The factual background leading to the filing of the present writ petition is, adumbrated, as under:-

“The petitioner, herein, is a recognized Taekwondo player of the Arunachal Pradesh Tae-Kwon-Do Association, affiliated to Taekwondo Federation of India, Arunachal Olympic Association, Sports Authority of Arunachal, recognized by Ministry of Sports & Youth Affairs, Govt. of India, and a permanent resident of Pachu village, in the District of Lower Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh, and has represented the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the Taekwondo Championship2016, in 62 kg weight category held at Rajasthan and Khelo India, a National level sports competition held at Chennai, Tamil Nadu as well as represented the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the 21st National Sub-Junior Boys & Girls Taekwondo Championship-2013, held at Bangalore and has passed Class XII.

On 22.02.2017, the Superintending Engineer(Co-ordination) Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Advertisement No.RWC/Cord/Estt./Advt-582/2017-18, has invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment of 40 posts of LDC-cum-Computer Operator, including 1(one) post reserved for Meritorious Sports person, and pursuant to the above, the petitioner had applied for the post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator against the 5(five) per cent reserved quota for the meritorious sports persons, by submitting her application containing all relevant documents. In response to the said advertisement, altogether 16(sixteen) sports persons had applied against 5% Meritorious Sports Persons (MSP) reserved quota and the respondent authorities accordingly constituted a 3-Member Scrutiny Board which short listed 8(eight) candidates for viva-voce test and prepared a report for recruitment of Meritorious Sports Person under the Rural Works Department in descending order in terms of their achievements in which the petitioner was placed at serial No. 5 and the private respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No. 8. Thereafter, on the basis of calling letter, the petitioner had appeared before the interview board for recruitment to the post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator, under 5% reserved sports quota for sports person, on 25.05.2018, and on the same date i.e. 25.05.2018, the result of the interview held for the post of LDC-cum-Computer Operator for the meritorious sports persons, under 5% quota, was declared by the Superintending Engineer(Co-ord), Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, and subsequently, the private respondent No. 3 was appointed vide order, dated 29.05.2018, by the respondent No. 2 without considering the merit list report, prepared by the Scrutiny Board, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Memorandum No. 14034/1/95-Esst (D) Dated-New Delhi, 4-5-1995. In response to her RTI application, the state respondents had furnished all the relevant documents/informati

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top