THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Petition (C) No. 4667 OF 2010 SHRI SURAJEET DAS, SON OF SHRI CHITTA RANJAN DAS, RESIDENT OF PANJABARI (BOTAHGULI), ADALAT PATH, HOUSE NO. 9, GUWAHATI-37, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. Petitioner -Versus- 1. THE STATE OF ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECRETARIAT (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY.-6, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECRETARIAT (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT AND MEMBER SECRETARY, SELECTION COMMITTEE, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, SECRETARIAT (ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6, DISTRICT-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 4. SHRI NAYANMONI KALITA, SON OF SHRI ANANDA CHARAN KALITA, QUARTER NO. 6, BLOCK-VIII(M), UNIT-26, CAPITAL COMPLEX, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.. Respondents BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For the Petitioner : Mr. HK Das, Advocate. Mr. GR Dev, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mrs. HM Phukan, Govt. Advocate. Date of Hearing : 02.01.2014. Date of Judgment : 02.01.2014.
Judgment & Order (Oral) Heard Mr. HK Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. HM Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 4, though served. 02. Case of the petitioner is that an advertisement dated 07.08.2006 was published by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Secretariat (Administration) Department, inviting applications from intending and eligible candidates for filling up of 80 numbers of vacancies in the post of typist in the Assam Secretariat, including backlog vacancies for Schedule Tribes (Hills) and Schedule Tribes (Plains). The required eligibility prescribed was that the candidate should have passed Higher Secondary/Class XII from a Government recognized Board/Council and should have minimum typing speed of 30 wpm for English and 20 wpm for Assamese (preferably). It was further specified that the candidate should have good working knowledge of computer application possessing minimum 6 months diploma/certificate in computer proficiency from a recognized institution. Petitioner applied pursuant to the said advertisement. Typing speed test was held on 22.02.2010 and result was declared on 12.06.2010. Petitioner was declared qualified in the typing speed test and thereafter he was called for computer test on 27.06.2010. Results were declared on 11.08.2010. However, petitioner WPC No. 4667 Of 2010 Page 2 of 7
did not find his name included in the list of successful candidates. According to the petitioner, he had performed much better than respondent No. 4, in both the typing speed test and in the computer test and, therefore, he ought to have been selected above respondent No. 4 but instead, respondent No. 4 was selected above him. Alleging foul play in the preparation of select list, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the answer scripts of typing test and computer test of the petitioner and respondent No.4 for examination by the Court and consequential direction thereafter. 03. This Court by order dated 20.08.2010, while issuing notice, observed that any appointment made to the post of typist pursuant to the impugned selection would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 04. Respondent No. 3 in his counter-affidavit has stated that performance of the petitioner in the selection was as under: - English typing speed Assamese typing speed 35.0 wpm 07.0 wpm It is further stated that petitioner had secured 34 marks out of 50 in the computer test. Petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 80 of the merit list of 170 qualified candidates. A Selection Committee was constituted with the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home WPC No. 4667 Of 2010 Page 3 of 7
and Political Department as the Chairman, Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Department as Member and Addl. Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Secretariat (Administration) Department as Member Secretary. The Selection Committee decided to adopt the following procedure for selection of 80 candidates in order of merit: - i) Merit list would be prepared on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in English typing, ii) In case of equal marks being secured by two or more candidates in English typing, the marks obtained in Assamese type writing would be counted for determining the position in the merit list. iii) If the candidates secure equal marks in both English and Assamese type writing, then their merit position would be determined on the basis of marks obtained in the computer test. 05. Respondent No. 4 scored 36.4 wpm in English and 10 wpm in Assamese. He secured 15 marks out of 50 in the computer test. (Be stated that the Selection Committee had decided to fix 15 marks in the computer test as qualifying marks). 06. As respondent No. 4 had scored 36.4 in English typing test more than the petitioner, who had scored 35 wpm, respondent No. 4 was placed above the petitioner at 66 th position in the merit list compared to 80 th position secured by the petitioner. He, therefore, WPC No. 4667 Of 2010 Page 4 of 7
contended that there was no irregularity in the selection of respondent No. 4. 07. Petitioner in his rejoinder-affidavit enclosed a list of candidates, who had scored 30 wpm and above in English. In that list, respondent No. 4 is shown to have scored 34.6 wpm in English compared to 35 wpm by the petitioner. 08. When this matter was taken up on 29.08.2013, this Court observed that prima facie as per norms adopted by the Selection Committee, petitioner ought to have been placed above respondent No. 4 in the merit list. Respondent No. 3 was directed to file necessary affidavit to explain the above position. 09. Consequently, respondent No. 4 filed additional-affidavit on 16.09.2013. It is stated that respondent No. 3 prepared the merit list after scrutinizing/verifying the draft merit list. The merit list so prepared was approved by the Selection Committee. Authenticity of the list annexed by the petitioner in his rejoinder-affidavit has been disputed and denied. Enclosing the English typing speed sheet of the respondent No. 4 to the additional affidavit, respondent No. 3 has reiterated that he (respondent No. 4) had scored 36.4 wpm in English typing test. Respondent No. 3 stated as under:- The deponent further stated that in original merit list the number of the selected candidates are 170 and on the other hand WPC No. 4667 Of 2010 Page 5 of 7
the selection list which was submitted by the writ petitioner, there are the numbers of total candidates are 168 which was not approved by any authority. Moreover, it is also clear from the answer scripts of the English typing test of private respondent No. 4 he obtained marks as follows: - Total word Correct Wrong Left 214 198 10 6 Grand Total = 198-10-6 = 182 = 182/5 (minutes) = 36.4 wpm Total typing speed is 36.4 wpm The abovementioned chart is correct and similar with the original Merit List submitted by the deponent. The deponent never committed any such alleged discrepancy/partiality or anomaly. The deponent further stated that on scrutiny of record in the Department it has been found and ensured that Shri Nayan Moni Kalita, the Private Respondent No. 4 has secured 36.4 marks in English typing speed test and not 34.6 as alleged by the writ petitioner. It is not known how the writ petitioner has collected an unauthenticated list containing 168 Nos. of candidates. It is also clarified that the Private Respondent No. 4 Shri Nayan Moni Kalita has not been appointed till date. 10. In the course of hearing today, Ms. HM Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate has produced the original record, including the English typing speed sheet of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. The WPC No. 4667 Of 2010 Page 6 of 7
original record also contains merit list of qualified candidates, which shows that respondent No. 4 having scored 36.4 wpm in English typing speed test is placed at Sl. No. 66 as compared to 35 wpm scored by the petitioner, who has been placed at Sl. No. 80. 11. I have also perused the typing sheets of both petitioner and respondent No. 4 and I do not find any error in the assessment of the typing sheets of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. 12. Having regard to the above and considering the limited scope of interference by a writ Court in a selection process, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the same. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Beep! Judge WPC No. 4667 Of 2010 Page 7 of 7