JATIN BARUAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a candidate for the post of Principal in Biswanath College (hereafter referred to as the College), is aggrieved by the selection of the respondent No. 5 for the said post and the consequential steps taken by the Official respondents for his appointment thereto. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 14. 09. 2004 had directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the process of such appointment. Consequently no appointment on the basis of the impugned selection has yet been made.

(2.) I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. SC Biswas, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. Munir, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, Mr. D. Mazumdar, Advocate for the College Authorities and Mr. SK Muktar, Advocate for the respondent No. 5.

(3.) THE skeletal facts indispensable for disposing of the petition are that in response to an advertisement issued by the College for appointment to the post of Principal thereof, the petitioner along with the respondent No. 5 and seven others submitted their candidature. Eventually, however, seven candidates participated in the process. According to the petitioner, apart from the fact that he was a candidate already selected by the State Selection Board for appointment to the post of Principal in any college in the State, he performed exceptionally well in the selection. In his view, considering his commendable contribution to and achievements in the literary, social and cultural fields as well as his academic merit and performance in the interview, he by far was the best candidate most suitable for the post. However, from a reliable source he came to learn that the Selection Board had drawn up a panel of candidates in which the respondent No. 5 was placed at Sl. No. 1 with 56 marks followed by the petitioner with 55 marks. The third candidate Dr. UK Sharma was shown to have scored 50 marks. The petitioner has provided in the petition a comparative statement of marks awarded to him and the private respondent. His grievance is that though in the interview on an average, he had scored 6. 555, it was not rounded up to 7 whereas in the case of private respondent his score of 9. 888 in the interview was raised 10. His further grievance is that inspite of exemplary and extraordinary extra curricular activities to his credit, the Selection Board denied any mark to him whereas the private respondent was awarded 2 marks on that count. It is the petitioner's contention that the Selection Board had failed to asses his suitability in the proper perspective by adopting a fair procedure resulting in serious prejudice to him.