IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Rajib Nath, S/o. Muk Heswar Nath & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by the Chief Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 5210 of 2008, WP(C) No. 941 of 2017
Decided On : 19-09-2023
Assam Treasury (Establishment) Service Rules, 1993 - Rule 13 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16, 226 - Advertisement notice - Cancellation of recruitment process - WP(C) was instituted by 5 (five) other aspiring candidates after a delay of more than 8 years, contending that cancellation of earlier recruitment process as well as issuance of fresh advertisement notice, were wholly arbitrary, illegal and hence, liable to be set aside - Held, Recruitment process had been cancelled by authorities after conducting a thorough enquiry into matter by a responsible officer who had submitted a detailed report recording his findings - Nothing has been pointed out before this Court to establish that findings were perverse - If that be so, it cannot be said that recruitment process has been cancelled in an arbitrary and whimsical manner - List or signature affixed therein also does not contain any date - Other three members of selection committee including Deputy Commissioner, who was Chairman of Selection Committee, had not put his signature on list - Said list cannot be treated as a valid select list of candidates prepared on merit basis for making appointments for filling up vacancies - Court is of opinion that there is no right of petitioners which can be enforced in these writ petitions - Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these writ petitions. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam appearing for the respondent No.5. Both these writ petitions are founded on common questions of law and facts and therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The case projected in the writ petitions, briefly stated, is to the effect that the four writ petitioners in WP(C) No.5210/2008 and the five writ petitioners WP(C) No.941/2017 had participated in the recruitment process initiated by the Treasury Officer, Sonitpur for filling up 10 vacant posts of Junior Accounts Assistant and one post of Grade-IV staff in the Sonitpur District Treasury establishment for the year 2007-08. Pursuant to the letter dated 01.02.2007 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department granting approval for conducting the recruitment process for filling up the aforesaid posts, the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur had written a letter dated 02.06.2007 requesting the Employment Exchanges of Tezpur and Biswanath Chariali to send names of eligible candidates for appointment in the vacant posts of Junior Accounts Assistant and the Grade-IV post. After receipt of the communication from the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur the respective Employment Exchanges had apparently forwarded the names of 190 candidates including the present petitioners by maintaining a ratio of approximately 1 : 20. As per the requirement of the provisions of Rule 13 of the Assam Treasury (Establishment) Service Rules, 1993, a Selection Board was constituted and the candidates were asked to appear in a written test held on 28.10.2007. Thereafter, the short-listed candidates were called for viva-voce tests held on 11.03.2008. According to the petitioners, they had fared well in the selection process and therefore, were expecting to get selected. However, the final result of the selection process was not published. On the contrary, due to interference of the then Minister of Irrigation, Assam, the Commissioner, North Assam Division, Tezpur had instituted an enquiry into the selection process and he had also instructed the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur not to make any appointment to the aforesaid posts. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Commissioner, North Assam Division had found various anomalies in the selection process. Consequently, by the order dated 12.11.2008, the selection process was cancelled whereafter, a fresh advertisement dated 29.11.2008 was issued for filling up the aforesaid vacant posts. It was only after the publication of the advertisement notice dated 29.11.2008 that the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.5210/2008 became aware of the decision to cancel the selection process. Accordingly, they had approached this Court by filing the above-mentioned writ petition wherein, the learned Single Judge had passed an interim order dated 12.12.2008 restraining the respondents from taking any further steps pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 29.11.2008. The said interim order is holding the field till today.
3. Assailing the advertisement notice dated 29.11.2008, WP(C) No.941/2017 was instituted by 5 (five) other aspiring candidates after a delay of more than 8 years, contending that the cancellation of the earlier recruitment process as well as the issuance of the fresh advertisement notice, were wholly arbitrary, illegal and hence, liable to be set aside.
4. The respondent No.5 i.e. the Treasury Officer, Sonitpur Treasury has filed affidavit in WP(C) No.5210/2008 inter-alia contending that the recruitment process was initiated upon receipt of concurrence from the Finance Department, Assam for the 10 posts of Junior Accounts Assistant vide Government Order No. FEB.63/06/54 dated 01.02.2007. Thereafter, the process of recruitment was
Union of India and others Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and another
Dipak Babaria and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others
Md. Maidul Islam and others Vs. State of Assam and others
Utpal Goswami and others Vs. State of Assam and others
Arabinda Rabha and others Vs. State of Assam and others
Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others
Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela
State of Orissa and another Vs. Mamata Mohanty
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors.
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors.
Arun Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors.
Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray Mahoto & Ors.
National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh
Telecom District Manager & Ors. v. Keshab Deb
State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Mohd. Ibrahim
Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 381
The recruitment process cannot be altered post-advertisement; candidates retain rights if the selection was conducted properly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of the entire selection process should only be considered if there is no chance of segregating genuine candidates from those ....
Candidates participating in a recruitment process do not have a legal right to appointment if the selection process is found to be flawed and thus invalid.
Point of Law : It is open for the authority concerned not to fill up vacancies but such decision should not be arbitrary or unreasonable.
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.