KANAI LAL PODDAR Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the fourth respondent herein are the Assistant Teachers of Netaji Subhash Vidyaniketan, a Government aided school managed by its Managing Committee. On 18.9.04, the third respondent issued an advertisement inviting applications from bona- fide citizens of India for appointment to the post of Headmaster, Asstt. Head Master and some other posts of post graduate and under graduate teachers by direct recruitment. Both the petitioners and the fourth respondent applied for the post of Asstt. Headmaster and faced interview before a selection board constituted for the purpose. The petitioner is admittedly senior to the fourth respondent as known in the final seniority list of post graduates Asstt. Teachers published on 27.11.2001 (Annexure-2) wherein the petitioner has been shown at SI. No. 10 while the fourth respondent figured at S1. No. 11. The result of the interview went in favour of the fourth respondent which is the cause of grievance of the petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that the selection of the fourth respondent was done as per the obsolete guidelines issued by the Director of School Education (the second respondent herein) on 23.6.89 (Annexure-3) which had been quashed by this court on 4.11.97 in C.R. No. 263 of 94. After quashiing of the said memorandum, the State respondents issued a fresh memorandum on 2.1.01 (Annexure-5) laying down the guidelines to be followed for selection of staff in Government aided schools. The grievance of the petitioner is that these guidelines were not followed by the respondents resulting to wrong selection of the fourth respondent. Had the respondents followed the latter guidelines contained in memorandum dated 2.1.01 he would have got 36.75 marks as against 40.60 marks of tine fourth respondent on academic performances and 15 marks as against 10 marks of the fourth respondent on seniority which would have inevitably enabled him to score total marks more than the fourth respondent. He, however, could not say what was his marks in the interview taken by the selection committee. According to him, the respondents, instead of following the memorandum dated 2.1.01, illegally and without any good reason followed the guidelines contained in memorandum dated 23.6.89 (already quashed by this court) whereby both the petitioner and the fourth respondent were given 15 marks on seniority. He, however, admits that on academic performances, fourth respondent was entitled to 28.3 marks and the petitioner 24.6 marks as per his own assessment as per latter guidelines. Again, no marks given in the interview by the selection board were available to the petitioner when this writ petition was instituted. His further grievance is that as per the advertisement (Annexure-6) a candidate for the post of Asstt. Headmaster must have Master degree/Honours in any subject securing at least 45% marks from any recognized university with good academic records. The Union Public Service Commission (for short, 'the UPSC') in its advertisement for some Central posts explained that the term 'good academic records' means at least 2nd class with 50% marks in graduation degree. The petitioner obtained 50.8% marks in graduation while the fourth respondent obtained 49.2% marks in honours graduation. If 'good academic records' is interpreted in the light of the explanation given by the UPSC then certainly the fourth respondent did not qualify for the post and for that reason alone his selection by the Committee is void. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction for quashing the offer of appointment to the fourth respondent to the post of Asstt. Headmaster communicated by the second respondent on 18.1.05 or alternatively, to direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to arrange fresh selection in accordance with the guidelines; contained in memorandum dated 2.1.01 (Annexure-5).

(2.) The Secretary of the Netaji Subhash Vidyaniketan filed affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the third and fourth respondents contending, inter alia, that the posts of Headmaster and Asstt. Headmaster of the Institution were lying vacant for a long time due to court cases and on 10.9.04, this court passed an order in W.P. (C) No. 157 of 2004, W.P. (C) No. 52 of 2000 and W.P. (C) No. 532 of 2001 directing the Secretary of the Institution to complete the process of selection and appointment for the two posts within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Accordingly, the advertisement (Annexure-6) was issued inviting applications and he received 27 applications for the post of Asstt. Headmaster out of whom 5 including the petitioner and the fourth respondent were the Asstt. Teachers of the Institution. Of the 5 teachers, Smt. Basabi Pal Chowdhury was the seniormost followed by the petitioner and the fourth respondent in second and third position respectively. The fourth respondent was junior to the petitioner by about ten months on the basis of date of entry into the service of the Institution and both of them have completed more than 15 years of service in their posts as post graduate teachers. Out of 27 candidates, 21 turned up for the interview including the petitioner and the fourth respondent before the selection committee who sat on 19.11.04, 20.11.04 and 22.11.04. Before the interview taken by the selection committee on the above dates, a meeting of the selection sub committee was held on 17.11.04 and in that meeting the criteria for selection was formulated. Following that criteria the fourth respondent was adjudged first and the petitioner was found to be close second. On 24.11.04, the mana ging committee approved the selection of the fourth respondent and the petitioner as a member of the managing committee recorded his signature on the approval. The proposal was then sent to the second respondent and on 18.1.05, the Secretary was asked to issue offer of appointment. On 20.1.05 the offer was issued in favour of the fourth respondent and on 24.1.05 the second respondent directed the Secretary to issue appointment letter. Accordingly, on the same day, the fourth respondent was issued appointment letter and on 25.1.05 he joined to the said post. On 1.2.05 the second respondent formally communicated the approval of the said appointment. It has further been contended that Annexure-5 on which much reliance has been placed by the petitioner is not meant for selection of Headmaster or Asstt. Headmaster. The guidelines are meant for recruiting the staff for Government aided schools. The selection committee evolved its own procedure by providing 50 marks for academic performance, 35 marks for performance in the interview and 15 marks for seniority or the length of service. The selection committee assessed academic performance of the candidates on the basis of their results in the public examinations and accordingly awarded 71.30 marks to the fourth respondent and 67.5 marks to the petitioner. Even if the guidelines at Annexure-5 are followed then also the fourth respondent and the petitioner were to be given 42.83 marks and 36.75 marks respectively. As both of them have completed more than 15 years of service in the Institution, the selection committee awarded 15 marks to them. Thus, even if the equal marks were given to both of them for performance before the interview, the fourth respondent would have got 6.05 marks more than the petitioner. It has further been noted by the said respondents that the fourth respondent secured 62.6% marks in Higher Secondary examination securing 1 st Division, 49.25% marks in B.Sc. Hon's, 58% in M.Sc. and 62.6% marks in B. Ed. as against the petitioner who obtained 44.51% marks securing 3rd Division in the school final, 47.7% marks in Higher Secondary, 50.8% marks in B.Com. (pass course), 53% marks in M.Com. and 60.4% marks in B.Ed. Thus, even in the calculation of the petitioner, the fourth respondent has to be awarded more marks than the petitioner. It is, thus, contended that the selection procedure suffers from no illegality and irregularity and the petitioner's grievances are absolutely without merit calling for no interference from this court in the selection and appointment of the fourth respondent.

(3.) The State respondents also filed separate counter affidavit supporting the stand (taken by the Secretary of the Institution contending, inter alia, that the petitioner as a member of the managing committee teachers' representative) having approved the selection of the fourth respondent for the post of Asstt. Headmaster cannot resile from the same to question the selection at a later stage. The State respondents support the selection procedure adopted by the selection committee admitting that the guidelines rendered in Annexure-5 are not meant for the selection of Headmaster and Asst. Headmaster.