IMPORTANT POINT
The selection process must be fair and transparent; systemic irregularities can invalidate the entire process, even if some candidates are innocent of wrongdoing.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J.

1. The instant writ appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the judgment and order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 853/2017, whereby the learned Single Judge has refused to grant reliefs prayed for by the appellant in the writ petition, however, disposed of the said writ petition with certain observations.

The operative portion of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:

“22. For the reasons stated above, this court is of the opinion that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case meriting interference with the select list dated 17-08-2016 by this court. As such, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner is declined.

23. Before parting with the record, it would be necessary to clarify herein that the discussions, observations and findings of this Court recorded in the foregoing paragraphs must be understood strictly in the context of the merit of the challenge made in the writ petition and those observations and findings shall in no way come in the way of the investigation in connection with the ACB P.S. Case No. 18/2016, which is stated to be under progress, nor shall it prevent the authorities from taking an independent view as regards the validity of the selection process depending upon the materials that may become available before them at any subsequent stage.”

2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as “APSC”) on 15.12.2012, had issued an advertisement inviting applications for filling up various posts which included 14(fourteen) Nos. of posts of District Malaria Officer under the Health and Family Welfare (A) Department, Assam. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellant and other interested candidates had submitted their applications for the posts of District Malaria Officer and thereafter, took part in the screening test conducted by the APSC on 26.04.2015. The result of the said screening test was declared by the APSC on 20.08.2015 vide Notification dated 21.08.2015 published in The Assam Tribune, whereby as many as 59 candidates were declared as qualified for the viva-voce/Interview scheduled to be held on 18.09.2015, and the appellant was one of them. It is revealed that out of those 59 candidates, 56 candidates, including the appellant, had appeared for the viva-voce/Interview on 18.09.2015. The APSC issued a select list dated 17.08.2016 of 14 candidates who were selected as District Malaria Officers on the advertised vacancies.

3. As the appellant’s name did not figure in the said select list, she approached the Writ Court by filing WP (C) No. 853/2017 assailing the entire selection process claiming it as illegal.

4. The challenge of the appellant to the entire selection process was based on two grounds. Firstly, the APSC had selected candidates to the posts of District Malaria Officer only on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the viva-voce test while ignoring the marks secured by the candidates in the written test. It was the case of the appellant that selection solely based on viva-voce is not permissible under the law and the same is treated to be illegal.

Second ground of the appellant to challenge the selection process was that the same was vitiated by corrupt practices committed by one of the Members of the Interview Board. Claims were made that the said Member of the Interview Board had approached her on phone and asked for money to ensure her selection. It was also alleged that in connection with the said incident, the appellant had already lodged an FIR with the Addl. Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Assam and based on which, ACB P.S. Case No. 18/2016 was registered under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in the said case, investigation is going on.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties a