The selection process for Junior Assistant posts was invalidated due to significant irregularities, and the principle of estoppel does not prevent a candidate from challenging an illegal selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.J. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Kalita, learned standing counsel for the State respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent no.4, and Mr. R. Borpujari, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

2. By advertisement dated 03.02.2015, published by the District Industries and Commerce Centre, Golaghat (respondent no.3), applications were invited for filling up 2 (two) vacant posts of Junior Assistant in their office. The petitioner along with others had participated in the selection process. The selection was a three stage process, requiring the applicants to successfully clear the written test, then clear the computer typing test and to also successfully clear the viva-voce test. The petitioner has projected that he and 8 (eight) other candidates (total nine candidates) had cleared the written test that was held on 30.03.2015. Thereafter, they had also appeared in the computer typing test held on 11.05.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner and eight others had appeared in the viva-voce test held on 25.06.2015. Thereafter, vide notice dated 29.06.2015 and 30.06.2015, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were declared selected and were appointed in the said post.

3. In this writ petition, it is alleged that from RTI reply received by the petitioner, he came to know that the selection process was biased and was favoured towards respondent no.4 and the selection process was defective and the proceedings were carried out in an illegal manner. In this regard, amongst others, three following major allegations has been made.

a. The question paper prepared by the question setter was handed over to Sri Rajkumar Bori, father of respondent no.4, namely, Ballav Jyoti Bori. The respondent no. 4 is found to have scored highest marks in the written examination, but his performance was not that brilliant in computer typing test and viva voce.

b. The written test was held on 30.03.2015. Marks were allotted on 30.03.2015, but the evaluation-sheet was prepared on 07.04.2015.

c. Though by a Memorandum dated 01.06.2015, a five member viva voce committee was constituted, but only two members of the Committee had signed the final minutes of evaluation. Thus, three members had abstained from signing the final evaluation sheet.

d. Sri S. Gam, who was the fourth member of the Selection Committee, in his RTI reply dated 19.08.2015, had stated that he was not a member of the Selection Committee.

e. Viva voce test was held on 25.06.2015 and the minutes was prepared on 25.06.2015. However, on the same date, the Selection Committee had also held their meeting and the result was declared.

4. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases, viz., (i) Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2010) 20 SCC 17; (ii) State of Karnataka & Ors. v. G.V. Chandrashekar; and (iii) Dr. (Mrs.) Kirti Deshmankar v. Union of India & Ors., 1990:INSC:270 : (1991) 1 SCC 104.

5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Industries Department had vehemently opposed the writ petition reference was extensively made to the stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3. It was submitted that everything was done in a transparent manner and there was no illegality as alleged.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 had also vehemently opposed the writ petition and it was submitted that although it has been alleged that the father of the respondent no. 4 had collected the answer script, but he has not been arrayed as a respondent in this writ petition for which this writ petition is not maintainable. It was submitted that the various committees were constituted in a transparent manner and even if there was some irregularities, the same would not vitiate the selection process. It was submitted that if the petitioner was aware of the anomalies, he should have raised his objection immediately at the time of app