Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 958
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Pranjal Pratim Goswami, S/o. Ramesh Chandra Goswami And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam, Through- The Secretary, To The Government Of Assam, Handloom, Textiles And Sericulture Department And Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No.5655 of 2023, WP(C) No.5882 Of 2023
Decided On : 01-08-2024
For the Petitioners: Shri H.R.A. Choudhury, Senior Adv., assisted by Shri F.A. Hasan, Adv., Shri B. Das.
For the Respondents: Shri R. Dhar, State Counsel.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the method of selection for public employment, including the introduction of written examinations, is within the employer's discretion, provided it ensures fairness and transparency.
Headnote:
RECRUITMENT - SERICULTURE DEMONSTRATOR SELECTION - ASSAM SERICULTURE TECHNICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS (NON GAZETTED) SERVICE RULES, 2008, RULE 5 (3) - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for the post of Sericulture Demonstrator as per the Assam Sericulture Technical and Miscellaneous (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 2008, particularly Rule 5 (3), which outlines educational qualifications. The introduction of a written examination for selection was deemed reasonable and necessary for ensuring fairness and transparency in the recruitment process, contrasting with previous practices that relied solely on interview or training marks. The court emphasized the prerogative of the employer to determine the selection method, provided it does not violate any statutes or demonstrate malafide intentions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, qualified candidates for the post of Sericulture Demonstrator, challenged the introduction of a written examination in the recruitment process, arguing that previous selections were based solely on training marks and interviews. They had previously sought relief regarding age eligibility, which was granted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the introduction of a written examination was not arbitrary or unreasonable. It upheld the employer's right to determine the selection process, emphasizing the need for a fair and transparent recruitment method.
Issues: Whether the introduction of a written examination in the selection process for the post of Sericulture Demonstrator was reasonable and lawful, given the petitioners' claims of previous recruitment practices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that for public employment, open competition is essential, and the method of selection is at the discretion of the employer, provided it is not arbitrary or in violation of any laws. The introduction of a written test was justified as a means to enhance fairness and transparency in the recruitment process.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, the interim orders were vacated, and the authorities were directed to conduct the selection process in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.) :
Both these writ petitions being connected wherein similar reliefs have been prayed, the same are taken up for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners have the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Sericulture Demonstrator under the Directorate of Sericulture, Assam.
3. As per the Rules holding the field namely, the Assam Sericulture Technical and Miscellaneous (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 2008, Rule 5 (3) lays down the eligibility criteria for the candidates and the petitioners claim to have fulfilled all such eligibility criteria. To be specific, the Rule contemplates as follows:
(a) HSLC examination passed with one year Certificate Training Course from Sericultural Training Institute, Titabor, Jorhat up to 1996-97 batch.
or
(b) HSSLC (Science) examination passed or equivalent with one year Certificate Training Course from Sericultural Training Institute, Titabor, Jorhat from 1997-98 onwards batch.
4. A recruitment drive for the aforesaid post was made by an advertisement dated 01.03.2023. The age however was stipulated to be in the range of 18 years to 40 years. As the petitioners were over aged, they had approached this Court by filing various writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C)/1469/2023. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2023 whereby there was a direction to consider the representations of the petitioners for condonation of age. The overage was condoned and accordingly, the petitioners had applied. The present grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the introduction of the aspect of written examination in the selection to be held. The primary contention advanced is that in all previous recruitment process, the same were done on the basis of the marks obtained in the training which the petitioners are required to undergo and is an essential requirement to be eligible. However, in the present recruitment process, the written examination has been prescribed which had been termed to be unreasonable.
5. I have heard Shri H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri F.A. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/5655/2023. I have also heard Shri B. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/5882/2023. The respondents -Department is represented by Shri R. Dhar, the learned State Counsel who has also filed affidavit in the first writ petition with a contention that the same would also cover the second writ petition, as the issues are analogous.
6. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel, by referring to certain earlier recruitments has submitted that all such recruitments have been made on the basis of walk-in-interview. In this regard, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents pertaining to recruitment for the post of Sericulture Demonstrator held in the years 2004, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2018. It is submitted that the petitioners are sufficiently aged and it will be difficult for them to compete with the others who are younger in age. This Court has however been informed that so far as the petitioner no. 35 is concerned, after filing of this case, he has passed away.
7. Shri B. Das, the learned counsel while endorsing the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel has further referred to certain appointments to the said post of Sericulture Demonstrator which were done on the basis of seniority and it is contended that the said practice has been followed.
8. Percontra, Shri Dhar, the learned State Counsel has at the outset submitted that the Directorate of Handloom, Textiles and Sericulture has no control over the Sericulture Institute which is an autonomous body and therefore, the assessment done by the said Institute over certain training cannot be the basis of the recruitment.
9. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 02.02.2024 in WP(C)/5655/2023,
