The court upheld the principle that a candidate failing to meet qualifying marks cannot claim selection, and natural justice requires hearing affected parties before altering appointments.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. R Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. S Sarma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. P Nayak, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.3.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not selecting the petitioner as well as seeking a mandamus that the petitioner should be selected in terms with the judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 passed by this Court. In addition to that, the petitioner has also assailed the communication dated 17.07.2015 as well as the list of candidates dated 29.07.2015.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant petition is that on 13.12.2011, the respondent No.6 had issued an advertisement inviting applications for various numbers of vacancies. The vacancy which is relevant for the purpose of the present case is for the post of Copyist which is a single post.

4. It has been mentioned in the said advertisement that candidates having experience in judicial work or working in the judicial establishment in the State of Assam with requisite qualification shall be given due weightage. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the said advertisement and seeking regularization. This Court vide the order dated 23.09.2013 in WP(C)No.1537/2012 did not issue any direction for regularization of the petitioner, but rather taking into account that the petitioner had applied in pursuance to the advertisement had observed that the respondent No.6 shall give due weightage to the experience of the petitioner while considering his case in the ongoing selection process.

5. Subsequent thereto, it is seen that on 13.07.2013, a written test was held amongst the various candidates for the post of Copyist. It is seen from the records and more particularly, from the affidavit so filed by the respondent No.6, that on 14.05.2015, the Selection Committee had passed a resolution. In the said resolution, it was mentioned that a written test was conducted and the cut off mark was decided at 50% for the Copyist. Accordingly, 7 numbers of candidates were qualified in the written test and they were selected for the viva voce test. The petitioner admittedly did not secure the 50% cut off marks.

6. In view of the order passed in WP(C)No.1537/2012, the Selection Committee thought it proper that before rejecting the case of the petitioner as he could not clear the written test, they would seek an opinion from the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side. Upon seeking such opinion, the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side had opined vide the communication dated 17.07.2015 that as the petitioner had failed to secure the minimum cut off mark for the written test, the due weightage cannot be given as he had failed to pass the basic efficiency test.

7. It is further seen that subsequent thereto, those persons who had cleared the written test were notified vide notice dated 29.07.2015 which was also put to challenge. Be that as it may, the persons whose names were notified vide the notice dated 29.07.2015 were not made parties to the instant proceedings.

8. It is seen that initially this Court while issuing notice passed an order of stay to the selection process. The said order was vacated by the order dated08.01.2018.

9. The respondents have also filed their affidavit and in the said affidavit their categorical stand taken is that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum 50% of the qualifying marks in the written test, and, as such, he could not be considered or given due weightage, inspite of the order being passed by this Court. It was also mentioned in the said affidavit that they had also sought for confirmation from the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side and in pursuance thereto, the communication dated 17.07.2015 was issued.

10. I have heard the learned coun