The court ruled that a fair evaluation in recruitment interviews is essential, asserting that absurd scoring practices cannot stand, and substantial justice prevails over technicalities of delay.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. A Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. S Saha, learned counsel, Mr. P Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura Judicial District [WP(C) 303 of 2021] and Ms P Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. Despite due notice from this court, none appears for the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5.

2. All the writ petitioners appeared in the selection test (comprised of written test and viva voce) in response to the recruitment advertisement under No. F.R.CELL/DJ/W/2015/ (Main)/4314 dated 24.4.2015 issued by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala and after the written test, all the writ petitioners were called upon to appear in the viva voce test. There is no dispute that all the writ petitioners were zero out of twenty five marks allotted for the interview (viva voce). The writ petitioners have asserted that they would have been successful if their performance in the interview were properly assessed by the interview board.

3. It has been asserted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that awarding zero is not only illogical but is also absurd. Even though the petitioners appeared and participated in the interview but they were not interviewed and assessed.

4. However, this contention has been quite squarely disputed by the respondents. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has categorically contended that the similar dispute has been appreciated and decided by this court firstly in Jakir Miah v. District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura Judicial District & Ors (Judgment dated 11.02.2020 delivered in WP(C)894/2018) along with another writ petition.

5. In the said judgment, this court had occasion to observe that how marks were distributed is not available from the records of the interview. It is not denied that the petitioners have participated in the said proceeding. It is, however, accepted that some marks were allotted on the basis of the qualification. If that is so, it is really absurd how the petitioners can secure zero in the interview. Even the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 have not stated the method they had followed in the interview. It is really strange that no method has been recorded anywhere in the records, even not in the sheet where they had given marks. From one of the sheets, it appears that there were two aspects against which the marks were allotted and from another sheet, used by one of the interviewers, it surfaces that there were three aspects. It appears that the interviewers have given marks without following any uniform procedure.

6. Having returned this observation, the respondent No.1 was directed to take a fresh interview of the petitioners and after appreciating their performance in the interview board, if they may come within the merit zone they should be appointed, but they will not get any retrospective appointment. Following Jakir Miah (supra), this court has passed several other decisions with similar directions.

7. In Subangkari Podder v. District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura Judicial District & Ors. (Judgment dated 24.07.2020 delivered in WP(C) 196/2020) along with another writ petition, this court having endorsed the view in Jakir Miah (supra) has directed the respondent No.1 as follows:

(i) The respondents shall constitute a fresh interview