IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J., SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Dr. Rajeswarie Sankaran, W/o. Dr. Praveen K. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Vikramjeet Dutta, S/o. Binod Behari Dutta & Ors. - Respondents
WA No. 458 of 2023, WA No. 467 of 2023
Decided On : 17-09-2024
Judgment - Writ Appeals - No specific Act/Section mentioned - The court analyzed the validity of a selection process for academic posts, emphasizing the autonomy of the Selection Committee and the legality of separate assessments in a composite interview setting.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves two writ appeals challenging a judgment that set aside the selection of candidates for Assistant Professor posts at AIIMS Guwahati, based on claims of improper assessment during a common interview for multiple posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Selection Committee had the authority to conduct a composite interview and make separate assessments for different posts, and that the respondent's delay in filing the writ petition undermined his claims.
Issues: Whether the Selection Committee could conduct a single interview for multiple posts and make separate assessments, and whether the delay in filing the writ petition affected its maintainability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Selection Committee's discretion in conducting interviews and assessments was valid, and that the respondent's failure to raise objections during the process precluded his claims.
Result: The impugned judgment was set aside, and both writ appeals were allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Suman Shyam, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant in WA 458/2023 as well as Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel, appearing for the writ appellants in WA 467/2023. We have also heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the writ appeals.
2. Both these intra-court appeals arise out of the common judgement and order dated 06/11/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 420/2023, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 1 as writ petitioner. Writ Appeal No. 458/2023 has been instituted by one of the successful candidates, viz. Dr. Rajeswarie Sankaran whereas, Writ Appeal No. 467/2023 has been preferred by the Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Changsari, Kamrup, Assam along with its Director as well as the Standing Selection Committee of the AIIMS, as the appellants. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these writ appeals, we propose to dispose of these appeals by this common judgement and order. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of these writ appeals are briefly narrated herein below.
3. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Guwahati, through the Director, Bhubaneswar (Mentor Institute), had issued an advertisement notice dated 05/10/2021 inviting applications for filling up a number of vacant posts in AIIMS Guwahati in different departments including 1(one) post of Associate Professor and 3 (three) posts of Assistant Professor in the Department of Microbiology. The sole post of Associate Professor in Microbiology was for un-reserved category candidates. However, out of the 3 posts of Assistant Professor, 2 posts were meant for unreserved category candidates whereas, 1 post was reserved for candidate belonging to the Schedule Caste (SC) category. Since the controversy involved in this batch of writ appeals is pertaining to only the selection and appointment of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor in the department of Microbiology, hence, it would not be necessary for this Court to refer to the other category of posts advertised by the notice dated 05/10/2021.
4. It appears from the materials on record that in response to the advertisement notice dated 05/10/2021, the respondent no.1 viz. Sri Vikramjeet Dutta, who was eligible to apply for the post of Associate Professor as well as Assistant Professor in the department of Microbiology, had submitted his candidature for both the posts. After considering the eligibility of the candidates, the authorities had invited the respondent no.1 to appear before the Interview Board in connection with selection process initiated for the posts of Associate Professor as well as Assistant Professor.
5. As per the materials available on record, it appears that a 9 member common Standing Selection Committee (SSC) of experts was constituted for selection of candidates to the posts of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor in the Department of Microbiology, AIIMS, Guwahati, with Professor (Dr.) T. Bhattacharyya as its Chairman. The interview for the posts of Associate Professor/Assistant Professor in Microbiology had commenced at 9 a.m. on 23/04/2022. A perusal of the attendance sheet of candidates go to show that while there were 14 candidates who had applied for the post of Associate Professor, the number of candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Microbiology were 18 in total. The name of the respondent no.1 finds place in the list of eligible candidates for the posts of Associate Professor as well as Assistant Professor.
6. Upon completion of the interview process, the SSC had recorded its decision in the Minutes of Meeting (MoM) recorded on 26/04/2022 declaring the names of the candidates who were selected as well as those who were wait listed. As per the mat
Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171
Pradeep Kumar Rai and others Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493
Madanlal Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486
The court affirmed the validity of separate assessments in a composite interview process, emphasizing the autonomy of the Selection Committee in determining selection methodologies.
The withdrawal of a selection process can be justified if it is not mala fide, arbitrary, or for ulterior considerations, and does not fall foul of constitutional provisions.
Interview-only selection valid for senior academic posts if compliant with per-vacancy screening rules; uniform expert evaluation indicates consensus, not bias.
Participating without objection in the selection process bars a candidate from later contesting its fairness; procedural adherence in evaluation is crucial for validity.
It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question method of selection and its outcome.
The court affirmed that petitioners, having previously accepted the selection process, were barred from later contesting the methodology due to principles of waiver and acquiescence, despite alleging....
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.