Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Parvez Ali Ahmed S/O- Ashraf Ali Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging selection process for driver post (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. absence of prior resolution on marks allocation (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. justification for marking process in selection (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. need for fairness in recruitment process (Para 18 , 20) |
| 5. requirement for transparency and fairness in selection. (Para 19) |
| 6. court's direction for fresh selection (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. B. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.Rohman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court. I have also heard Mr. M. Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6.
2. The issue involved in the present of writ petition is the challenge to the order bearing No.250 dated 09.12.2024 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Salmara, Mankachar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’) primarily on the ground that the respondent authorities in order to appoint the respondent No.6 had given very high marks in the viva-voce test compared to all other candidates including the petitioner that too w
The selection process for public employment must adhere to principles of fairness and transparency; failure to predefine marking criteria constitutes a violation of constitutional rights.
The selection process must be fair and transparent; systemic irregularities can invalidate the entire process, even if some candidates are innocent of wrongdoing.
Recruitment criteria cannot be altered after the selection process begins, as it violates principles of fairness and predictability under public service law.
(1) Appointment of District Judges – “No change in the rule midway” dictum has become an integral part of service jurisprudence – If precluding a candidate from appointment is in violation of recruit....
Rule 12(1)(i) of Rules of 2006 prescribes that no person selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be appointed unless appointing authority is satisfied that he possesses a good moral char....
Selection criteria cannot be changed post-tests by applying 50% weightage if unspecified in advertisement; violates Article 14 by arbitrary midway alteration of merit evaluation.
The court upheld the validity of minimum qualifying marks in judicial appointments, affirming that candidates who do not meet these criteria lack standing to challenge the selection process.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of a fair and transparent selection process, the need for objective criteria in assessments, and the application of reservation policies in appointments.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
