Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 710
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Smt. Krishna Boro, W/o. Sri Dharmendra Mushahary And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Boroland Territorial Area Districts, Rep. By The Principal Secretary And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.3200 Of 2018, WP(C) No.1294 of 2018, WP(C) No.3296 of 2018, WP(C) No.7557 of 2018, WP(C) No.7553 of 2017, WP(C) No.1713 of 2018
Decided On : 14-05-2024
For the Petitioners: Mr. B.B. Narzary, Sr. Adv., Shri S Chauhan, Adv.
For the Respondents: Shri R.K. Mushahary, SC, BTC.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will not interfere with a selection and appointment process if it finds that the process was conducted in accordance with the advertised procedures and the petitioners' claims are not substantiated by the available materials on record.
Headnote:
Selection Process - Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) - Office Memorandum dated 16.10.2004, Article 14 of the Constitution of India - [Higher Secondary passed, Class-X passed, walk-in-interview, merit list, oral examination, appointment, selection process, call letter, advertisement, candidatures, viva voce, Rules, educational qualification, suppression of material facts, locus]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a recruitment process for filling up the post of Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) in the BTC. The petitioners challenged the selection process, alleging that they were not given a fair opportunity, no merit list was prepared, and the selection was based only on viva voce. They also raised concerns about the number of posts filled and the educational qualification requirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' challenge was not substantiated by the available materials on record. It noted that a merit list was prepared, the selection process was conducted through a walk-in-interview, and the petitioners had participated in the interview despite their claim of not receiving a call letter. The court dismissed all the writ petitions, finding no case for interference with the selection and appointment process.
Issues: The issues involved the fairness of the selection process, preparation of a merit list, compliance with educational qualification requirements, and the petitioners' participation in the interview process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that a merit list was prepared, the selection process was conducted through a walk-in-interview as per the advertisement, and the petitioners had participated in the interview despite their claim of not receiving a call letter. The court also considered the stipulations in the advertisement regarding the selection process and the number of posts to be filled.
Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed by the court, and no costs were imposed on the petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
All these writ petitions being connected and related to a recruitment process for filling up of the post of Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) in the BTC are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. At the outset, this Court has been informed that so far as the WP(C)/7553/2017 and WP(C)/1294/2018 are concerned, no adjudication would be necessary as the grievance raised in those writ petitions pertaining to the minimum educational qualification has also been redressed in the meantime.
3. The facts which are projected in the writ petition and relevant to the issue involved are that on 22.11.2017, an advertisement was issued for filling up of various posts in the BTC, including 35 nos. of posts for ANM. One of the eligibility criteria was Higher Secondary passed which, however, was corrected by a corrigendum to be Class-X passed. It is the case of the petitioners that they had submitted their candidatures in terms of the said advertisement. However, they were never called in the selection process and accordingly, they were deprived of from a fair opportunity in public employment. The challenge is also based on the fact that no merit list was prepared and the selection was apparently based only on viva voce. The aspect of filling up more posts than the numbers of post advertised has also been raised.
4. I have heard Shri BB Narzary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners. The BTC authorities are represented by Shri RK Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were not given any call letters and therefore, they could not participate in the selection which, otherwise also is not in accordance with law as it was consisting only of viva voce. It is also submitted that no merit list has been prepared and no list containing the marks obtained by the respective candidates was published. It is also submitted that the selection was held without following any Rules. Attention of this Court has been drawn to an Office Memorandum dated 16.10.2004 as per which, the BTC was supposed to make Rules for making appointments. It is, accordingly submitted that the selection and appointment are liable to be interfered with and a fresh selection be directed to be made by giving the petitioners a fair opportunity of participation.
6. In support of the submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following case laws:
i) State of Bihar Vs. Kaushal Kishore Singh & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 104;
ii) Mukul Saikia & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (2009) 1 SCC 386;
iii) Renu & Ors. Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazri & Anr., (2014) 15 SCC 731; and
iv) Dipankar Dihingia Vs. State of Assam & 6 Ors., Order dated 19.10.2023 passed by this Court in WA/337/2018 (DB).
7. In the case of State of Bihar(supra), it has been held that selection and appointment without preparation of a merit list is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. The case of Mukul Saikia (supra) has been cited on the aspect of filling up of more vacancies than those advertised.
9. In the case of Dipankar Dihingia(supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that selection and appointment is not generally to be done on the basis of oral examination only.
10. Percontra, Shri Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel has questioned the locus and competency of the petitioners to raise the present issue itself. By drawing the attention of this Court to the advertisement dated 22.11.2017, the learned Standing Counsel submits that it was clearly stipulated that it would be a “walk-in-interview” wherein all details of such interview was stated. The dates for interview were given as 7th & 8th December, 2017; time as 10-00 AM onwards and the Venue as the Central Selection Board, DLR Building, Kokrajhar.
11. With regard to the contention that no selection list has been published, the lear
