YOMI KARBI Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T. Son, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. L. Singh, learned Sr. Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh. Also heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 4.

(2.) PURSUANT to an advertisement dated 12. 6. 2002 for recruitment to the post of Computer Programmer, the writ petitioner, Sri Yomi Karbi participated in the selection process along with others. There was a written examination and on the basis of the said written examination the petitioner, the private respondent No. 4. Miss Tomen Rumi and one Sri Marpe Sora were called for interview/viva-voce and thereafter, on the basis of the written examination as well as the viva-voce/ interview, the respondent No. 4 was selected for the post and accordingly she was appointed. The writ petitioner has challenged the said appointment of respondent No. 4 in this writ petition stating, inter alia, that in the written examination the petitioner had secured the highest mark of 225. 5 out of 500; whereas the respondent No. 4 has secured only 176 marks. However, the viva-voce test was conducted with some ulterior motive and in the said viva-voce test the petitioner was given only 35 marks and the other candidate was given 40 marks, whereas the respondent No. 4 was allotted 87 marks. According to the petitioner this was done arbitrarily with a view to appoint the private respondent No. 4 as the Director of the Administrative Training Institute, who was a Member of the Selection Board, was biased towards her.

(3.) THE private respondent has filed an affidavit justifying her selection. The State Government has produced the relevant records of Selection Board and it is submitted that as the petitioner has participated in the said selection process and being an unsuccessful candidate, he cannot challenge the selection process as he had taken a chance to get himself selected in the impugned interview. Learned counsel has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Madan Lal Vs. State of Jandk, 1995 (3) SCC 486.