Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 286
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
AJAY RASTOGI, ARINDAM LODH, JJ.
Ms. Jayeeta Paul D/o Late Ashish Ranjan Paul - Petitioner
Versus
The High Court of Tripura, Represented by the Registrar General & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 429 of 2018
Decided On : 18-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.K. Biswas, Mr. G.K. Nama
For the Respondents: Mrs. P. Dhar, Mr. R. Datta
Rectifying errors in the selection process is justified to ensure fair consideration, and mere offer and acceptance of appointment do not constitute a concluded contract in service jurisprudence.
Headnote:
Appointment - Library Assistant - Schedule-III, Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservations Act 1991 - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Rules 2014 - Judgment of the Supreme Court (2001) 10 SCC 51, (2008) 3 SCC 512, (2010) 12 SCC 130 -
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Library Assistant, was offered the appointment, but the offer was later cancelled due to a tabulation error in the marks. The petitioner challenged the cancellation, citing violation of the Indian Contract Act and principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation was justified as it was based on rectifying a tabulation error in the selection process. The court emphasized the importance of fair consideration and rectifying errors in the selection process, dismissing the petitioner's claim of a concluded contract and the rule of the game not being changed.
Issues: Validity of appointment cancellation, Application of Indian Contract Act, Alleged violation of natural justice, Change in selection criteria
Ratio Decidendi: Rectifying errors in the selection process is justified to ensure fair consideration. Mere offer and acceptance of appointment do not constitute a concluded contract in service jurisprudence. Change in selection criteria after the initiation of the selection process is not applicable in this case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the court found it devoid of merit.
Ajay Rastogi, J.
Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner who had participated in the process held for the post of Library Assistant was at one stage declared successful and offer of appointment was made but before order of appointment could be issued offer of appointment was cancelled under order dt.02.05.2018 which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.
2. The post of Library Assistant is categorized in Group-C (Non-Gazetted) and a part of Schedule-III has been substituted by the Amendment Rules 2015 under the High Court of Tripura Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service & Conduct) Rules 2014.
3. Three posts of Library Assistant have been sanctioned to be filled by open selection and the advertisement came to be published vide notification dt.04.02.2017 holding selection against three sanctioned posts of Library Assistant in terms of the procedure prescribed for open selection under the Rules 2014.
4. After the applications were received written examination was held on 10.09.2017 and out of 172 eligible candidates 92 candidates including the petitioner appeared in the written examination for the post of Library Assistant. The competent authority constituted the committee for evaluation of the answer scripts.
5. It may be noticed that out of three vacancies of Library Assistant two were reserved for open category and one for ST as per the 100-point roster in terms of the Tripura Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Reservations Act 1991 and 14 candidates including the petitioner were found eligible and called for viva voce test held on 02.02.2018 out of which 13 candidates appeared in the viva voce test and the select list of the candidates on the basis of marks scored in the written examination and viva voce was uploaded by the respondents on 12.03.2018 in which the petitioner was shown at No.2 against the un-reserved vacancy and at the same time the reserved panel was also published (Annexure- R/II & R/III respectively).
6. In furtherance the offer of appointment was made to the petitioner on 12.03.2018, pursuant thereto the petitioner accepted the offer and tendered her resignation from National Institute of Technology, Agartala where she was working on contractual basis under the belief that she may join on the post of Library Assistant pursuant to the offer of appointment made but to her dismay offer of appointment was cancelled by the respondents vide order dt.02.05.2018 which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after the offer of appointment was made and accepted by the petitioner that becomes a concluded contract and that could not have been revoked after acceptance being prohibited u/Sec.5 of the Indian Contract Act 1872.
8. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the offer of appointment was made and accepted by the petitioner rule of the game cannot be changed by the respondents at later stage and this being a manifest error committed by the respondents in passing of the later order cancelling the letter of appointment of the petitioner under order impugned dt.02.05.2018 is not only in violation of the principle of natural justice but also not sustainable in the eye of law and in support of submission placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2001) 10 SCC 51, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. & Ors. vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors. and (2008) 3 SCC 512, K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
9. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and it has been averred that after the offer of appointment was made and acceptance was received it was brought to notice that the answer scripts of the candidates who had participated in the process there appears to be an error in tabulation of marks in the written examination and that stage it was decided to scru
