H. LALROPIANGA Vs. MIZORAM UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents i.e. Mizoram University advertised for filling up of 13 posts of Lower Division Clerks by Employment Notice dated 21st December, 2012 amongst other posts. Pursuant to the Employment Notice, the petitioners applied for the post of LDCs and they were provisionally admitted to the written examination. The written examination for the post of Lower Division Clerk was held on 11.5.2013 and by Notification dated 29.5.2013 the respondents declared 163 candidates to have qualified for the Typing Test and Computer Proficiency Test. Amongst the 163 candidates, the names of the petitioners figured therein. The Typing Test and Computer Proficiency Test was conducted by the respondents on 4.6.2013 and by Notification dated 6.6.2013 declared 46 candidates to have qualified for Personal Interview for the vacant post in Mizoram University. Amongst the 46 candidates, the names of the petitioners were also shown to have qualified for the said Personal Interview to the post of Lower Division Clerk. Personal Interview was conducted by the Selection Committee on 12.6.2013 and on the recommendation of the Mizoram University Selection Committee (Groups 'B' & 'C') the respondents by Notification dated 24.6.2013 selected the petitioners against the post of Lower Division Clerks in Mizoram University. By the said Notification dated 24.6.2013, the selected candidates were requested to submit joining report within 1(one) month from the date of publication of the result and to take necessary action in accordance with the stipulations listed out in the offer of appointments. Thereafter, the respondents had issued offer of appointment to each of the petitioners to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the Ministerial Service of Mizoram University, Aizawl by offer letter dated 26.6.2013. All the petitioners accordingly submitted their acceptance letter to the offer of appointment made by the respondents. However, by letter dated 15.7.2013, the petitioners were informed that the appointment to the post of LDC in Mizoram University was being kept on hold till further orders. The petitioners thereafter came to learn from the local media that the appointments have been cancelled and had therefore, submitted representations on 7.8.2013 requesting the respondents for information as to why the post offered to them was being cancelled. In reply, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioners by letter dated 21.08.2013 that the recruitment to the post of LDC advertised on 21.12.2013 has been cancelled by the 35th Meeting of the Mizoram University Executive Council held on 26th July, 2013. Again by another letter dated 23-08-2013, the respondents had informed the petitioners that the matter on LDC recruitment was deliberated by the 35th Executive Council Meeting on 26.7.2013 and the Executive Council vide EC : 35 : 5(8) was of the view that certain aberrations had occurred during the selection process of the LDC in view of which the Council resolved to cancel the recommendation for the appointment of LDCs. Being aggrieved with the actions of the respondents in cancelling their recommendation for appointment to the post of LDC in the Mizoram University, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinah T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the only reason given by the respondents for cancelling the recommendation for appointment of the petitioners to the post of LDC was that the 35th Executive Council vide EC : 35 : 5(8) was of the view that certain aberrations had occurred during the selection process of the LDC. The word "aberration" had been vaguely used and no appropriate reasons had been given while the impugned letters dated 15.7.2013 and 23.08.2013 were issued by the respondents. The reasons given by the respondents for cancelling the recommendation is therefore totally vague and arbitrary. The same was also passed without hearing the petitioners and there has been gross violation of natural justice. He submits that the petitioners have undergone the whole process of examination and they were selected by Notification dated 24.06.2013. Thereafter, they were given the offer of appointment which was also accepted by the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that as the offer of appointment was given by the respondents and thereafter accepted by the petitioners the same amounts to a concluded contract and therefore, the respondents could not have issued the impugned letters dated 15.07.2013 and 23.08.2013. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the same examination the process for filling up the posts of Junior Engineer, Assistant and Stenographer was also conducted. However, the respondents have proceeded only to cancel that selection of the petitioners and the other selected candidates for the post of Junior Engineer and Stenographer have not been interfered with.

(3.) The Mizoram University has filed affidavit-in-opposition opposing the writ petition. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there were complaints made against the assessment of the Selection Committee in the recruitment process of the 14 LDC's and therefore, the respondent No. 1 by a Notification dated 9-07-2013 had constituted a 3 (three) member committee to look into the alleged irregularities. The terms of reference of the 3 (three) members committee was to look into the status of the recruitment rules of the LDC's and the process of selection adopted for recruitment to the post of LDC. The said committee after examining the entire selection process had submitted its report on 16.7.2013 with the finding that the selection of candidates only on the basis of interview mark is not in order and the selection should have been made on the overall performance of written examination, computer proficiency test and interview. The scheme of examination which was given to the candidates was that the examination would consist of a competitive written examination with maximum marks of 50 and typing test on computer (qualifying nature) and interview with maximum marks of 60. The selection committee made 100 marks for the interview whereas the scheme had shown only for 60 marks. The selection committee had not followed the scheme of examination given to the candidates and had also travelled beyond the scheme of examination by awarding marks in the interview from 100 instead of 60. The Executive Council, therefore after consideration of the report had decided to re-conduct examination for filling up the post of 14 LDCs. He, therefore, submits that there is nothing wrong in the decision taken by the Executive Council.