IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, KOHIMA BENCH
Manish Choudhury, J.
N. Litsemo, S/O Nzinyimo – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/236/2019
Decided On : 10-12-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging non-selection for the post of Operator Radio Line - Petitioner claimed Scheduled Tribe status and participation in recruitment process - Respondent authorities declared petitioner '˜Low in Merit' based on written test results - Court found no merit in the petition as petitioner secured lesser marks than selected candidates and failed to implead higher-scoring candidates - Dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 1, 20, 23)
(B) Recruitment Procedure - The merit list is prepared based on written test scores, with age as a tiebreaker - Clearing all stages of recruitment does not guarantee selection - The petitioner's claim was found unmeritorious due to lower marks than the last selected candidate. (Paras 17, 19)
JUDGMENT :
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner assailing inter-alia an Office Letter dated 22.07.2016 and also his non-selection to the post of Operator Radio Line [ORL] pursuant a Recruitment Rally held in the year 2012 by the respondent Assam Rifles authorities.
2. The petitioner has claimed that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe [ST] categories and a permanent indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of October, 2012, an Advertisement was published inviting applications for regular selection and appointment in the posts of Trade -Operator Radio Line [ORL] by the respondent no. 4. As per the said Advertisement, the candidates shall be required to qualify in the Physical Efficiency Test [PET] as per the standards and procedures prescribed by the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 from time to time therein. It was mentioned in the Advertisement that only those candidates who were found eligible and qualified in the PET, would be called for participating in the Written Test to be conducted by the Selection Committee, duly constituted for the purpose.
4. In response to the said Advertisement, the petitioner submitted his candidature and on his application being found complete, the petitioner was called to participate in the Assam Rifles Recruitment Rally -2012. It is the further case of the petitioner that he received a Call Letter from the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner was asked to report at 07-00 hours on 15.10.2012 for the Written Test. On receipt of the Call Letter, the petitioner duly appeared in the Written Test. Thereafter, the petitioner who was allotted Candidate ID no. 3196, was informed by another Call Letter for Medical Test stating that the petitioner had qualified in the Written Test conducted at Dimapur and he had to report for Medical Test at the Assam Rifles Composite Hospital [ARCH] at Dimapur at 07-00 hours on 11.12.2012. The petitioner accordingly appeared for the medical examination at the time, date and venue mentioned by the respondent authorities. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was found medically fit in the medical examination test by the Medical Board.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner being confident of receiving appointment in view of his performance in the exams of the recruitment process including the Written Test and Medical Test, waited for his appointment. But during the subsequent period, he did not receive any information offering him appointment for the post of Trade Operator Radio Line [ORL]. When the petitioner did not receive final results of the Assamm Rifles Recruitment Rally -2012 wherein he participated, the petitioner submitted representations before the respondent authorities on 22.07.2013, 20.02.2014, 09.09.2014, 03.03.2015 and 14.07.2016.
6. It was in response to his Representation dated 14.07.2016, the Office of the Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong provided information to the petitioner about his performance in the Assam Rifles Recruitment Rally -2012 vide its Letter no. I.12016/Rect Branch/2016/187 dated 22.07.2016. In the said Reply on the subject ‘Enrolment into Assam Rifles : Regarding’, the petitioner was informed that the respondent authorities acknowledged the attendance of the petitioner in the Assam Rifles Recruitment Rally -2012 [Technical] at Dimapur, Nagaland for the post Operator Radio Line [ORL] trade against ST category. The petitioner had further been informed that he was found ‘Low in Merit’ against the vacancy allotted for the State of Nagaland. It had been notified that the petitioner had secured lesser marks in the Written Test from the other candidates, who were selected against the available vacancies.
7. After receipt of the Officer Letter dated 22.07.2016, the petitioner sought further information in respect of the Assam Rifles Recruitment Rally -2012 [Technical], more particularly, about the selection made for the posts Trade
Cement Workers Association vs. Paper Udyog Ltd. and others
D.K. Reddy and another vs. Union of India and others
Government of Karnataka and others vs. Gowramma and others
Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi
Hukan Chand Shayam Lal vs. U.I.O. and others
K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another
Karnati Ravi ANR vs. Commissioner Survey Settlements & Land Records and others
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and others
Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nandlal Jaishwal and others
Sant Ram Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and others
State of Maharashtra vs. Milind and others
State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh and others
Union of India vs. Indo-Afgan Agencies
The court upheld the recruitment process, affirming that mere qualification does not guarantee selection, emphasizing merit-based decisions.
Post of Police constable – Direct recruitment - To lower respective category-wise merit and accord selection to them on the vacant posts of Constable (Civil Police/PAC) – Held, Such situation eventua....
Point of Law : candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the preference indicated by candidates for a particular service is final and candidates can be kept out of consideration for appointment to ot....
In the absence of a specific provision allowing for a second chance for the PET in the recruitment process for Constables, the Court cannot grant such a chance to candidates who missed the PET due to....
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.