IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, J.
Shalini Khan, D/o. Sri Robin Khan – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, rep. By The Chief Secretary To The Govt Of Assam and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.3341 Of 2019, WP(C) No.3344 Of 2019
Decided On : 21-08-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309, 162 - Assam Public Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 1989 - Rule 8 and 11 - Assam Public Service Commission (Procedure & Conduct of Business) Rules, 2010 - Rule 77 – Vacancies - Recruitment to posts - Many candidates who appeared in CCE 2018 (Preliminary), but did not find their names amongst list of qualified candidates in examination and also found that answer keys of General Studies Paper and Optional Papers pertaining to said preliminary examination uploaded by APSC in its website to be wrong and erroneous, they submitted representations before APSC with various queries – Sympathy or compassion does not play any role in matter of consideration of their cases for any direction on their favour. Para 147.
Finding of the Court: While considering cases of petitioners and allowing them to participate in Main Examination of CCE, 2018; Court categorically observed that their results shall not be declared and would be subjected to outcome of writ petitions - As petitioners and private respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 did not qualify in their Preliminary Examination of Combined Competitive Examination, 2018, that was held, Court cannot direct to consider their cases for appointment to civil services and civil post under State Government even though they might have been selected by APSC in Combined Competitive (Main) Examination 2018 in violation of Assam Public Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 1989, a statutory Rules under Article 309 of Constitution of India.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Kamal Nayan Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Preetam Mahanta learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3341/2019 and WP(C) No. 3344/2019 as well as for the private respondent Nos. 5 to 8. Also heard Mr. Nilayananda Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae and Senior Counsel, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Deb Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the State Respondent, Mr. Tanmay Jyoti Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel and Standing Counsel, Assam Public Service Commission, assisted by Mr. Pankaj Pratim Dutta for the respondents in the Assam Public Service Commission.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The respondent Assam Public Service Commission vide No. 38.PSC/E-24/2017-18 dated 17.05.2018 issued the Advertisement No. 09/2018 informing that it will hold the Preliminary Examination of the Combined Competitive Examination, 2018 for screening candidates for the Main Examination for recruitment to the services/posts as per the actual number of vacancies as notified in accordance with the Assam Public Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 1989.
3. In the said advertisement dated 17.05.2018, the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC or Commission, in short) notified 165 numbers of vacancies for the posts/services of – (i) 43 posts of Assam Civil Service (ACS) (Junior Grade); (ii) 56 posts of Assam Land & Revenue Service (ALRS) (Junior Grade); (iii) 8 posts of Assam Police Service (APS) (Junior Grade); (iv) 10 posts of Superintendent of Taxes; (v) 1 post of Superintendent of Excise; (vi) 2 posts of Assistant Employment Officer; (vii) 10 posts of Labour Inspector; (viii) 32 posts of Inspector of Taxes and (ix) 3 posts of Inspector of Excise.
4. In continuation of its earlier Advertisement No. 09/2018 dated 17.05.2018 and in addition to those 165 numbers of advertised services/posts; pursuant to the Government Letter No. AAP.346/2017/87 dated 25.06.2018, the APSC by issuing an Addendum on 26.06.2018 notified another 95 (ninety five) posts of Assam Civil Service (Junior Grade) and 1 (one) post of Labour Inspector. Thereby, the APSC for the Combined Competitive Examination, 2018 (CCE 2018, in short), advertised 138 (43+95) posts of Assam Civil Service (Junior Grade) and 11 (10+1) posts of Labour Inspector and all together for 261 (165 + 95 + 1 =261) numbers of vacancies in those nine categories of services/posts, noted above.
5. In both the Advertisement dated 17.05.2018 and the Addendum dated 26.06.2018, the APSC specified the quota of reservation against each of the category of services/posts, i.e., — reserved for (i) Other Back Ward Community (OBC)/More Other Back Ward Community (MOBC), (ii) Schedule Caste (SC), Schedule Tribe (Plains) (STP), (iii) Schedule Tribe (Hills) (STH), (iv) reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in the category of (a) Hearing Impaired (HI), (b) Visually Impaired (VI) and (c) Locomotor Disabled (LD), and (v) Reserved for Women (RFW).
6. The APSC in the said Advertisement dated 17.05.2018 specified that the Combined Competitive Examination, 2018 shall be of two successive stages – (i) The Preliminary Examination and (ii) The Main Examination (Written and Interview).
7. In the advertisement dated 17.05.2018 for the CCE, 2018 the APSC stated the pay scales admissible for each cadre/services/post advertised; the date of availability of the application form; the last date of submission of duly filled in application form; eligibility criteria of candidates like – nationality, minimum and upper age of the intending candidates with relaxation to the reserved category candidates as well as for Person with Disabilities (PWD) and Ex-servicemen; educational qualification etc. and also named the 31 numbers of centres for the Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination throughout the State of Assam, clarifying that the Combined Competitive (Main) Examinatio
A.P. Public Service Commission -Vs- Baloji Badhavath
Hrishikesh Das -Vs- Assam Public Service Commission and Others
Ramchandra Keshav Adke -Vs- Govind Joti Chavare
Shiv Kumar Chadha –Vs- Municipal Corpn. of Delhi
Rajesh Kumar -Vs- State of Bihar
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation –Vs-Manmohan Singh
Umarani -Vs- Registrar, Coop. Societies
As per said 1989 statutory Rules, one of essential conditions is that to be qualified for admission to Main Examination of Combined Competitive Examination, one has to qualify Preliminary Examination....
The court established that the condition of passing the Preliminary Examination is mandatory, but equitable relief can be granted based on performance in subsequent stages.
Supreme Court did not give a blanket order for allowing any candidate to approach the Court for re-evaluation at any point of time and restricted relief to those candidates who had approached the Cou....
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
Judicial review is justified in cases of demonstrable error in examination answer keys, ensuring fair evaluation and selection processes.
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.