IMPORTANT POINT
The selection process must adhere to transparent and publicly disclosed criteria, and reliance solely on viva voce marks can lead to illegitimate appointments, undermining the integrity of the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

[Kardak Ete, J.]

We have heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. D.P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel for Department of Health Services and Mr. E. Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.

This intra court writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No. 4659/2015 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The challenge laid in the writ petition was to the selection and appointment Order No. JDTH/RNTCP/2000/Pt-III/262 dated 29.05.2015 of respondent No. 7 for the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor (herein after STS in short) at Dhemaji T.B. Cell, Dhemaji District, Assam.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that on 12.03.2015, the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Assam had issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up of various posts including 69 (sixty nine) posts of STS in different Districts/T.B. Cells in the State of Assam. In the advertisement qualification and the salary attached to each post were mentioned but did not indicate the procedure that would be adopted for selection of the candidates. Pursuant to the said advertisement the appellant/writ petitioner applied for the post of STS in respect of Dhemaji TB Cell and he participated in the written examination and scored 86 marks.

4. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner appeared for viva voce test. The respondent No. 7 who had scored only 47 marks in the written examination was selected for one of the posts of STS solely on the basis of her score in the viva voce test and was awarded a gross total of 62 marks against 57 marks obtained by the appellant/writ petitioner. Vide Order No. JDTH/RNTCP/2000/Pt-III/262 dated 29.06.2015 the respondent authority recommended and appointed respondent No. 7 as one of the candidates for the post of STS out of 2 (two) posts in the Dhemaji T.B. Centre, Dhemaji.

5. Aggrieved of the said selection and appointment of respondent No. 7, the appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being WP(C) No. 4659/2015. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2018 has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and omission to challenge the resolution dated 12.03.2015 as well as on failure to substantiate the allegation of malafide. Hence, this present writ appeal.

6. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner submits that no criteria for selection has been mentioned in the advertisement notice. However, after the applications were received, the respondent authorities had secretly evolved a selection criteria whereby it was decided that the marks obtained in the viva voce test would only be taken into account for final selection of the candidates and accordingly, prepared the merit list on the marks obtained in the viva voce test so as to suit their preferred candidate. He submits that originally the name of the respondent No. 7 was not shortlisted for viva voce test but taking advantage of the fact that her father was serving in the post of Joint Director of Health Services-cum-District T.B. Officer, Dhemaji the exercise was redone so as to accommodate respondent No. 7 and she was selected for appointment only on the basis of very high marks awarded to her in the viva voce test.

7. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that in the written test the appellant/writ petitioner had secured 86 marks as compared to the much poorer performance of respondent No. 7 who scored only 47 marks. It is the marks in the viva voce test which tilted the mandate of selection in favour of the respondent No. 7 in as much as in viva voce test respondent No. 7 was awarded 62 marks and the appellant/writ petitioner awarded only 57 marks and marks of written ex