ABU TABA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging not only the legality but also fairness and transparency of the selection process for the recruitment of Medical Officer (Allopathy) and Junior Dental Surgeons adopted by Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"), the petitioners have approached this Court with the present application made under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writ(s) on the respondents

(2.) In a nutshell petitioners' case runs thus : By an advertisement publishing on 8.8.2001, in Echo of Arunachal Pradesh, an English daily, in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the Commission invited applications for filling up of 20 (twenty) posts of Medical Officer (Allopathy) and 4 (four) posts of Dental Surgeon under Arunachal Pradesh Health and Family Department (hereinafter called "the said Department"). The advertisement mentioned that selection would be made through viva voce test-interview. The writ petitioners, who, too, had applied for the said posts, were called for the said vivavoce test/interview conducted by the Commission. The respondents No. 6 to 28 were, eventually, declared successful. The writ petitioners were amongst unsuccessful candidates. The said selection was made on the basis of Arunachal Pradesh Health Services Rules, 1990 (hereinafter called "Service Rules of 1990"). However, at the time of making the said selection, the Service Rules of 1990 already stood superseded by a new set of Rules known as Arunachal Pradesh Health Services Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "Service Rules of 2000"). The Rules of 2000 clearly laid down that selection of the Medical Officer shall be made by direct recruitment on the basis of written examination to be conducted by the Commission followed by interview. Under these Rules as far as recruitment for the post of Junior Dental Surgeon is concerned, the same shall be made either by written examination, to be conducted by the Commission, which is to be followed by interview or on the basis of interview only. In the present case, the selection was made on the basis of viva- voce/interview, which gave scope for manipulation to the persons constituting the Commission, Selection having, thus been conducted contrary to the provisions of Service Rules, 2000, entire Selection process is illegal and ineffective, because it allowed the Commission to adopt a method of pick and choose of their near and dear ones. In fact, Dr. Tana Jeshi Tara and Dr. Tana Natung namely, respondents No. 14 and 8 respectively are closely related to Chairman of the Commission and respondents No. 6, 7, 9 to 13 and 15 to 28 are closely related to members of the Commission and of other political high ups and they have been found placed in the selected list not because of their merit and experience, but by manipulations of the procedure of the interview/viva voce in gross violation of the Rules. The whole selection suffers from gross partiality, discrimination and favoritism. The selections so made, thus, need to be quashed.

(3.) Repelling the above allegations, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, the Commission, represented by its Chairman and the Secretary of the Commission have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, their case being, briefly stated, thus: As per the requisition received by the Commissioner from the Government vide letter No. MEST-97/194, dated 2.7.2001, and subsequent letter, dated 1.8.2001, the said Department had forwarded the Service Rules of 1990 (Notified vide No. MEST-77/150, dated 12.1.1990, for recruitment to the posts of Medical Officers (Allopathy), Dental Surgeons and Junior Specialists. Accordingly, the Commission, as per the laid down norms, conditions and terms of the said rules, issued advertisement for filling up the posts. Service Rules of 2000 had not been forwarded to the Commission by the Department, while submitting the requisition. The Commission was not aware that the recruitment Rules so received had already been repealed and, hence, the interview was conducted as per the Service Rules of 1990. The total marks kept for the interview was 100. In the entire process of recruitment, the Department had, at no stage, highlighted the existence of the new rules nor forwarded a copy of the same to the Commission. None of the candidates had raised the issue and the petitioners are raising the issue after the results have been declared, because rthe results are not palatable to them. The Commission had conducted the interview on the basis of the Service Rules of 1990, which allows selection on the basis of viva voce only. The Commission received altogether 94 (ninetyfour) applications and out of the same, 12 applications were rejected and the rest 82 candidates were called for the interview. The Commission has selected the candidates as per merit and not by manipulation of the procedure of the interview as alleged.