Judicial review in recruitment processes is limited; courts generally defer to the expertise of Selection Committees unless gross irregularities are demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Heard Shri B Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri U Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Shri B Chanda, learned counsel for the respondent no.8.

2. None appears for the respondent nos. 4 to 7 though an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 06.08.2019.

3. The bone of contention in this writ petition is a recruitment process for the post of Junior Assistant/LDA in the Netaji Vidyaniketan HS School in the district of Nagaon. The advertisement was published on 10.12.2015 in which, the petitioner had submitted his candidature along with other candidates, including the respondent no. 8. The selection consisted of a written examination and marks were also stipulated for type writing test and oral examination. In the results published, the respondent no. 8 was against first position securing 64 marks whereas the petitioner was in the second position securing 63 marks. As per the petitioner, the marks allotted to the respondent no. 8 in the written examination were not in accordance with law and extra marks were given for which, the respondent no.8 would steal a march over the petitioner.

4. Shri Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at least in 5 nos. of questions, marks, which were not entitled to by the respondent no. 8, were granted to him which had caused immense prejudice to the petitioner. He has also submitted that in certain questions, marks were not given to the petitioner which he had deserved resulting in lesser marks.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Q. No. 17 in which, model answer was 6.625 Kg whereas the petitioner gave the answer as 6.63 Kg. It is contended that the digits after the decimal could be made a whole number if the last digit is 5 which was accordingly done by the petitioner. He has also submitted that against Q. No. 23, the procedure adopted by the respondent no. 8 in answering was wrong and yet ½ number marks were given to him. He has also submitted that against the Q No. 13(c), which was for changing the form of narration, the respondent no. 8 had given an answer which was not in the model answers and therefore, marks should not have been given to him which was, however done. It is submitted that if the marks were properly evaluated, the petitioner would have been the first nominee and therefore, the appointment given to the respondent no. 8 is not accordance with law.

6. Shri Sinha, learned counsel has submitted, in the alternative that the matter of evaluation can be remitted to the authorities to do the evaluation strictly in accordance with law.

7. Shri Sarma, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the marks are given by experts and in the affidavit filed by the school authorities, proper reasons have been cited and therefore, there is no case made out for interference by this Court.

8. Shri Chanda, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 has, at the outset, pointed out that in the marks given to the petitioner in the written segment, though the total marks is 30, the petitioner is actually entitled to 29 ½ marks. In this regard, he had referred to Annexure-7 to the writ petition which is a document enclosed by the petitioner himself wherein while making the addition of the marks obtained by the petitioner ½ marks have been added to the total without any reason. On the other aspect of challenge, the learned counsel has referred to the affidavit of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed on 06.08.2019 and has submitted that the examiners have given all the reasons and justific