IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Suman Shyam, J.
Krishanu Kumar Bhagabati Son of Ajit Kumar Bhagabati And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner Secretary To The Government Of Assam, Animal Husbandry And Veterinary Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/7675 of 2022
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Assam Animal Husbandry, Veterinary and Dairying Service Rules, 1988 - Rule 4A and 6(c) - Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019 - Intimation letters - Advertisement notice - Block Veterinary - Whether process adopted by APSC in preparing select list by holding interview only was a permissible mode of selection Rules - Held, It is to be noted herein that in that case selection was conducted in total violation of rules applicable to post - It is in context of situation that Supreme Court had observed that Government had committed glaring illegalities in procedure and also in method of selection - It was held that by ignoring prescription of Rule selection process itself was taken out from purview of SSSB which was authority competent to hold process - On ground it was observed that principles of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence would not have any application to case - After careful reading ofaforesaid judgment this Court is of opinion that ratio of decision in case of others would not have any bearing in present case - Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. P. Borah, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the private respondent Nos.5 to 165.
2. By filing this writ petition the 21 petitioners have approached this Court challenging the select list dated 23.11.2022 prepared by the Assam Public Service Commissioner (in short, the APSC) for filling up 162 posts in the category of Veterinary Officer/ Block Veterinary Officer. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2022, the Deputy Secretary to the APSC had issued an advertisement notice No.13/2022 inviting applications for filling up 162 vacancies in the category of Veterinary Officer/Block Veterinary Officer, Class-B, Class-I (Jr. Grade) under the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department by means of direct recruitment. In response to the advertisement notice dated 22.07.2022, the APSC had received as many as 695 applications out of which, 622 applications were found to be in order. The writ petitioners herein, besides the selected candidates, were amongst those 622 applicants. In the advertisement notice dated 22.07.2022 it was mentioned that the selection procedure would be notified later by issuing corrigendum/addendum, if required and that the Commission will decide the procedure of selection considering the status, cadre and grade or the number of applications received for the advertised posts. Accordingly, notification dated 02.11.2022 was issued by the APSC notifying the dates of interview. In the notification dated 02.11.2022 the candidates were also instructed to download their intimation letters from the APSC website. The notification dated 02.11.2022 had made it clear that the selection process would be based on interview of the candidates. It was also mentioned that the reject list will be uploaded on 07.11.2022.
3. After processing the applications, the list of the 622 candidates, whose applications were accepted, was published whereafter, interview was conducted by the APSC during the period from 14.11.2022 to 21.11.2022. There is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioners herein had also participated in the interview. Eventually, the select list, containing the names of 162 successful candidates, was published on 23.11.2022. However, the names of the writ petitioners were not included in the select list dated 23.11.2022. As such, the present writ petition has been filed alleging that the selection procedure was dehors the rules and therefore, the select list dated 23.11.2022 was liable to be interfered with by this Court. By an interim order dated 29.11.2022 passed in this proceeding, the learned Single Judge had restrained the authorities from acting on the results published by the APSC on 23.11.2022 consequent to the advertisement notice dated 22.07.2022, as a result of which, no order of appointment has been issued in favour of the selected candidates i.e. the private respondents till date.
4. The APSC has conducted the selection as per the provisions of the Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019 (for short, the Procedure of 2019). The Secretary of the APSC has filed affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 stating that Rule 4A of the Procedure of 2019 permits direct recruitment to be conducted only on the basis of interview. Since the number of post was 162, which is less than 5 times the total number of applications, hence, the APSC had followed Rule 4A and invited
Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and others
Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and others
Chandra Prakash Tiwari and others vs. Shakuntala Shukla and others
Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla
Madan Lal and others vs. State of J & K and others
Raj Kumar and others vs. Shakti Raj and others
Rule 4A of Procedure of 2019 makes it clear that in case of direct recruitment select list can be prepared only on basis of interview.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to intervene in the selection process to rectify irregularities and ensure that only eligible candidates are considered for t....
Employment and Service matter - Grade-IV employees - Selection process - Selection process is not subject matter of challenge in absence of any grounds, subsequent action of issuing appointment order....
The approval of maximum marks of the interview by the Government subsequent to the selection fulfilled the condition of Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2015, and the selection was held in accordance with t....
Point of Law : Selecting body does not have its right to alter the procedure for selection than what is prescribed under the relevant Service Rules, 2014 and Recruitment Rules, 2017.
The court affirmed that petitioners, having previously accepted the selection process, were barred from later contesting the methodology due to principles of waiver and acquiescence, despite alleging....
Administrative department did not find any fault with procedure adopted in submission of application by respondent No.5, there is no infirmity in impugned order.
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.