Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KARDAK ETE, J.
HIRANYA KUMAR NATH S/O GAMBHIR CH. NATH – Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
WP (C) No. 4325 of 2012, WP (C) No. 7378 of 2013
Decided On : 27-08-2024
Key Points: - Writ petitions challenging a selection can be maintainable where there is glaring illegality or fraud in the process, and an inquiry may be warranted (!) (!) . - The court directed an inquiry into allegations of fraudulent experience certificates and allowed consideration for appointment of petitioners where some selected candidates may have defective credentials (!) (!) . - The court held that petitioners’ participation in the selection does not bar challenge where fraud is alleged, and it declined to prematurely invalidate appointments, instead directing an inquiry and potential remedial actions (!) (!) . - The matter involved examining the authenticity of experience certificates submitted by private respondents and CID charge-sheet findings, with the court noting that guilt is for trial but an inquiry is appropriate where serious allegations exist (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court preserved the right to consider petitioners for appointment if vacancies arise after inquiry, and noted inaction or laxity by authorities in investigating can be remedied by an inquiry (!) (!) . - The court referenced that the advertisement’s experience criteria were challenged as ambiguous and capable of forgery, prompting scrutiny of the entire selection process (!) (!) . - The court dismissed outright cancellation of the entire select list at this stage, emphasizing inquiry and lawful consequences rather than immediate invalidation (!) (!) . - The court did not grant costs and disposed of petitions with directions for inquiry and possible consideration of petitioners for appointment (!) .
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No. 4325/2012 and Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C)No. 7378/2013. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 17 in both the writ petitions and Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 12 in WP (C) No. 4325/2012.
2. Having regard to the similarity of the factual background and the issue raised, both the writ petitions were heard analogously and the same are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. By filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 17.11.2011 issued by the Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as APSC in short) pertaining to the educational qualification and experience and the selection process for recruitment to the post of Deputy Director/Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer under the Education (Secondary) Department, Government of Assam.
4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the APSC issued an advertisement No. 10/2011 vide No. 365 PSC/DR-5/1/2000-2001, dated 17.11.2011, inviting applications for selection to various posts including 16 (sixteen) numbers of Deputy Director/Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer under the Education (Secondary) Department, Government of Assam. In terms of the advertisement, the candidates should have Second Class Master Degree with 10(ten) years of teaching experience in School or College or administrative experience for 10 (ten) years of which 5 (five) years must be in teaching.
5. Pursuant to the above advertisement, the petitioners, being eligible to be appointed in the post of Deputy Director/Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer, have applied for the said posts. The petitioner no. 1 in WP (C) 4325/2012, claims to be an MA, B.Ed., degree holder with Hindi Prabin and a Diploma holder in 3 (three) years Computer Science and engineering course. He was appointed in the substantive post of Hindi teacher and has served in Asom Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission, a Government of India Scheme, as Programme Officer (teacher training and pedagogy) for 2 (years) on deputation. The petitioner no. 2 is an M.Sc., M. Phil, M. Ed. Degree holder with Hindi Bisharad and Diploma in Computer and was also appointed as Assistant Teacher and served as State Consultant (teacher training and pedagogy) on deputation and is still serving in the same capacity. The petitioners claims that they have brilliant academic careers and are fully eligible to be appointed in the post of Deputy Director/Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer under the Education (Secondary) Department, in terms of the above advertisement.
6. It is contended that since very large number of candidates applied for the post of Deputy Director/Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer, pursuant to the above advertisement, a list of candidates was prepared after scrutiny of the applications. In the said list, the name of petitioners were included having been found eligible. Accordingly, the petitioners were called for interview, which was conducted on 21.05.2012 upto 02.06.2012 in the Office of the APSC. It is contended that the Selection Board consisted of only 2 (two) members, one APSC member and the other one an expert. Total 3 (three) Selection Boards were constituted and 30 (thirty) candidates were allotted to each Board every day. It is the contention of the petitioners that the candidates were asked easy and simple questions by which it is not at all possible to assess the merit of the candidates as it hardly took three to four minutes by the Board to interview the candidate.
7. The APSC published a list of 16 (sixteen) selected candidates for the post
The court emphasized that participation in a selection process does not bar a challenge if there are allegations of fraud, warranting an inquiry into the selection process.
The court established that allegations of fraud in public recruitment necessitate an enquiry to ensure transparency and fairness.
Employment and Service matter - Grade-IV employees - Selection process - Selection process is not subject matter of challenge in absence of any grounds, subsequent action of issuing appointment order....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to intervene in the selection process to rectify irregularities and ensure that only eligible candidates are considered for t....
The retrospective application of administrative guidelines to recruitment processes initiated prior to those guidelines' issuance is unlawful and violates principles of natural justice.
The court ruled that the selection process for Junior Engineers/Assistant Engineers was fraudulent, violating Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, and directed a fresh review based on actual ma....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
