IMPORTANT POINT
The selection committee's discretion in assessing candidates based on Annual Confidential Reports and service particulars is valid, and the writ court's role is to ensure lawful decision-making.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned standing counsel, General Administration Department, Assam; Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate and Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel; appearing on behalf of their respective respondents.

2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment and order, dated 22.05.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 3029/2022.

3. The appellant, herein, being aggrieved by the selection and appointment effected in the case of private respondent No. 4, herein, as Revenue Sheristadar in the establishment of District Commissioner, Nalbari, had approached the writ Court by way of filing WP (C) 3029/2022.

4. The appellant, herein, had assailed the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4, herein, as Revenue Sheristadar, on the ground that the selection committee had not carried-out the selection involved, by assessing the merit of the candidates participating in the selection process and had carried-out the said selection, clearly in violation of the Rules holding the field and the executive instructions issued in this connection.

5. The appellant, herein, had contended that he having secured higher grading than that of the respondent No. 4, herein, in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) under consideration for the purpose of the said selection; his such merit was ignored by the selection committee and the said selection committee by solely basing on the seniority of the respondent No. 4, had proceeded to recommend the said respondent No. 4 for appointment against the post of Revenue Sheristadar in the establishment of the District Commissioner, Nalbari.

6. The appellant, herein, had also assailed the selection of the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the selection committee as constituted, was not so constituted in terms of the prescription as made in this connection in the provisions of Rule 7 of the Assam Ministerial District Establishment Service Rules, 1967.

7. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant, has reiterated the grounds as raised before the learned Single Judge and noticed hereinabove, during the hearing of the present writ appeal.

8. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, has submitted that the manner and method for recruitment to the post of Revenue Sheristadar having been prescribed, it was not open for the respondent authorities, more particularly, the selection committee, to proceed with the selection, in question, in violation of the laid down procedures, in this connection.

9. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel, has further submitted that the contentions raised in the matter by the respondent authorities and also reflected in the impugned judgment & order, dated 22.05.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 3029/2022; would go to reveal that the selection, in question, was one which was so conducted by solely relying on the seniority of the respondent No. 4, herein, and not by making an assessment of the inter se merit of the candidates appearing in the selection process by reckoning the gradings received by them in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) under consideration.

10. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that in the event, the selection committee has proceeded with the selection, in question, solely, by applying the criteria of merit, given the gradings awarded to the appellant, herein, in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) under consideration; he would have been recommended for appointment against the post of Revenue Sheristadar in the establishment of the District Commissioner, Nalbari, and the respondent No. 4, herein, would not have been so recommended given the inferior gradings in comparison to the appellant, herein.

11. Per contra; Mr. Phukan, learned standing counsel, General Administration Department, has submitted that the selection, in question, is re