Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J., SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Saswati Das D/o Haren Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Writ Appeal Nos. 361, 363, 364, 371, 373 of 2023
Decided On : 11-12-2024
(A) Assam Public Services Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 1989 - Preliminary Examination - The condition of passing the Preliminary Examination is mandatory for admission to the Main Examination. The APSC's decision to allow candidates who failed the Preliminary Examination to appear in the Main Examination was arbitrary and violated statutory rules. (Paras 20, 30, 41)
(B) Equity - The appellants, despite failing the Preliminary Examination, cleared the Main Examination and Interview. Given the APSC's prior allowance of ineligible candidates to participate, the appellants are entitled to equitable relief. (Paras 37, 41)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged their exclusion from the list of candidates eligible for the Main Examination after failing the Preliminary Examination, claiming incorrect evaluation of their answer scripts. The APSC had allowed 98 candidates who also failed to appear in the Main Examination, raising questions of fairness and equity.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the APSC's actions were arbitrary and that the appellants deserved relief based on their performance in subsequent examinations.
Issues: Whether the appellants, who failed the Preliminary Examination, should be allowed to participate in the Main Examination based on their performance in subsequent stages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the APSC's decision to allow ineligible candidates to participate created a precedent that warranted equitable relief for the appellants, despite their failure to pass the Preliminary Examination.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; APSC directed to declare results for the appellants and provide appointments based on merit. (Paras 41, 42)
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J.
1. These writ appeals are preferred on behalf of the appellants challenging the judgment & order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3341/2019 (Shalini Khan Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) and WP (C) No. 3344/2019 (Girbani Deka Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellants Shalini Khan (appellant in Writ Appeal No. 361/2023) and Girbani Deka (appellant in Writ Appeal No. 364/2023) and has concluded that as the appellants Shalini Khan and Girbani Deka as well as the appellants Saswati Das (appellant in Writ Appeal No. 363/2023); Vidisha Bodo and Anupam Deka (appellants in Writ Appeal No. 371/2023) and Manish Baruah (appellant in Writ Appeal No. 373/2023) did not qualify in their Preliminary Examination of the Combined Competitive Examination, 2018 (hereinafter to be referred as “CCE, 2018”) no direction can be given to the State Government to consider their cases for appointment to the Civil Services and Civil Posts under the State Government.
2. The undisputed brief facts of the case are that the respondent Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as “APSC”) had issued an Advertisement No. 9/2018 dated 17.05.2018 inviting applications from the eligible candidates to appear in the Preliminary Examination of the CCE, 2018 for screening them for the Main Examination for recruitment to the services/posts to be held for filling up of 165 number of vacancies for the posts/services in different categories, which has been specified in the advertisement itself. The last date for submission of the application forms for Preliminary Examination was fixed as 18.06.2018. Thereafter, taking into consideration the request made by the Government, the APSC had issued an Addendum on 26.06.2018 and notified another 96 vacancies in the posts/services of 2(two) categories and the last date for submission of the application from the interested candidates for their appearance in the Preliminary Examination has also been extended as such. In all, the APSC has invited applications from the interested and eligible candidates for their appearance in the Preliminary Examination for filling up of 261 vacancies of different categories of services/posts.
3. In the above-referred Advertisement and Addendum, it is clarified that the posts were reserved for the reserved category candidates as per the Rules in vogue in the State of Assam. In the Advertisement, it is mentioned that the Combined Competitive Examination consists of 2(two) successive stages, i.e. the Preliminary Examination and the Main Examination (Written and Interview). The other ancillary aspects, such as pay scale; eligibility criteria; minimum and upper age, etc., along with the disclosure of the centres where the Combined Competitive Examination is to be conducted has been mentioned. In the said Advertisement, it is also clarified that the Preliminary Examination shall be meant to serve as a screening test only and the marks obtained by a candidate in the Preliminary Examination will not be counted for determining the final order of merit. The other details mentioned in the Advertisement have already been noted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and there is no dispute about the same. Therefore, we refrain ourselves from looking into the admitted factual aspects which may not be of much relevance in deciding the controversy before this Court.
4. Be that as it may, the Preliminary Examinations pursuant to the above-referred Advertisement and Addendum took place on 30.12.2018 at different centres notified by the APSC in the Advertisement and Addendum. The result of the Preliminary Examination was declared by the APSC on 13.03.2019 and 3361 number of candidates were declared as qualified to appear in the Written Examination of the CCE, 2018. After declaration of the result, the APSC had uploaded the answer key of the said Prelimi
The court established that the condition of passing the Preliminary Examination is mandatory, but equitable relief can be granted based on performance in subsequent stages.
As per said 1989 statutory Rules, one of essential conditions is that to be qualified for admission to Main Examination of Combined Competitive Examination, one has to qualify Preliminary Examination....
Public Service Commission - Civil service Examination - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms - Public Service Commission have no power to relax the recruitment norms
The main legal point established is that candidates cannot challenge the lack of reservation benefits after participating in the selection process, and the reservation policy may not apply to the pre....
Supreme Court did not give a blanket order for allowing any candidate to approach the Court for re-evaluation at any point of time and restricted relief to those candidates who had approached the Cou....
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
