MD. JOYNAL SK. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the writ petitioner challenges the panel of selection made by the Selection Committee. The petitioner is the second empanelled candidate whereas the respondent No. 7 is the first empanelled candidate. In fact, the petitioner's whole contention is that there should not be allocation of 20 marks for the purpose of oral interview when 20 marks were allotted for written examination and 10 marks were allotted for the purpose of reading. The written test was held on Aug. 5, 2001 when reading and the oral interview were held on Aug. 6, 2001. The empanelment was done, admittedly, immediately thereafter.

(2.) The writ petition was filed on Aug. 23, 2001 but formally moved on Oct. 4, 2001 and obtained an interim order of status quo in respect of the appointment in the post of group 'D' (Peon) until further order of the court. Although due to certain non compliance of the order of the Court, a contempt application was proceeded but such question, at present, is not germane for the purpose.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment reported in (1991) 1 S.C.C. 622 : 1991 S.C.C. (L & S) 555 in its paragraph 33. In the said paragraph a discussion was made in respect of a decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana & ors. reported in (1985) 4 S.C.C. 477 : AIR 1987 Supreme Court 454: [1985(3) SLR 200 (SC)]. However, the Court ultimately held that there could be no gainsaying that viva voce test cannot be totally dispensed with, but taking note of the situation and conditions prevailing in our country, it would not be reasonable to have the percentage of viva voce marks more than 15 per cent of the total marks in the selection of candidates for a composite process of selection, namely, written examination and interview. The ratio of such judgment has been distinguished in the case of Anzar Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 141 : [1993(5) SLR 798 (SC)], which has been cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7, having similar strength of the Bench by saying that the said decision appears to have been given in a particular facts of the case and it cannot be said to have laid down a law different from which has been laid down in the earlier decisions of this court referred to above. The court was unable to construe the said decision to mean that the principles which govern the allocation of marks for interview in a selection based on written and viva voce test would also apply to a selection where no written test is held and the selection is based on interview only. It was further held therein that giving equal wait of 50 per cent marks each for academic performance and viva voce will reduce the possibility of arbitrariness.