SUDIP DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the selection process to the post of Senior Research Officer under the directorate of Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Tripura which was conducted pursuant to an advertisement dated 6th December, 2014. Main ground of the petitioner is that high marks were allotted to the oral interviews, thereby leaving unguided powers to the recruiting agency. The petitioner would point out that he had secured higher marks in the written examination than the selected candidate who was given excessive marks in the oral interviews to push his grand total beyond that of the petitioner and other candidates in the fray.

(2.) Brief facts are as under :

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the official respondents committed a serious error in allocation of 100 marks for viva-voce and 100 marks for the written examination. Thus, viva-voce was given 50% weightage which was excessive and clearly contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra). He pointed out that in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra) the Supreme Court had suggested that the weightage of viva-voce should not be more than 12.5%. He contended that the allocation of marks for vivavoce was not made public by the TPSC. It was only when the petitioner made further inquires that the said allocation of marks came to his knowledge. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner had participated in the selection process, would not preclude him from challenging the selection process. Counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in case of Tanmoy Nath and others v. State of Tripura and others reported in (2014) 2 TLR 731 to contend that in the said case this Court had disapproved allocation of 100% marks for the oral interviews.