VISEDEU SOLO Vs. CHAIRMAN NAGALAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 226 of the Constitutions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of notification dated 13.5.05 and have also prayed for a direction from this Court to call for records of written examination and viva voce interview in respect of the results declared on 6.2.05. By notification dated 13.5.05, the candidates who have applied for the posts in pursuance of advertisement No. posts in pursuance of advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.2.05 have been short listed. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have applied for the post of Lecturer in Education under SCERT (Class-I Gazetted) and their names have not appeared in the list notified on 13.5.05. In pursuance-of advertisement No. 1/2004-05 dated 31.5.04, the petitioner No. 1 had applied for the post of Lecturer in Education and she was also called for interview for personality test vide interview call letter dated 15.12.04 after having appeared in the written test. Pending disposal of the application, by order dated 20.6.05, this Court ordered that the oral interview for the posts of Lecturer in English and Education as per advertisement dated 17.2.05 shall not be processed by NPSC without permission of the Court.

(2.) The petitioners were appointed on contract basis in the post of Lecturer in Education under DIET (SCERT) and contract appointment was also extended. It is their case that in pursuance of advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.2.05 they had submitted applications but they were not called for interview. It is the further case of petitioner No. 1 that she possesses the requisite qualification as having possessed a degree of MA (Education) 1 st Class, BEd (2nd Class). It is also the case of petitioner No. 2 that she possessed a degree in MA (Education) and she has also completed the course in BEd at the time of submitting her application. It is contended by the petitioners that their names have not been included by the impugned order dated 13.5.05 although they are qualified to be called for interview as per conditions stipulated in the advertisement dated 17.2.05. It is also contended that the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) had adopted method/formula of short listing candidates without conducting examination at their whims and the same is unknown in any interview conducted by the Commission. It is also contended that the waiting list prepared by the NPSC has a validity of 6 (six) months as per OM dated 31.8.95 and there is every likelihood of petitioner No. 1 being in the waiting list in respect of the result declared on 6.2.05 and as such a basis for calling the records of the interview in respect of result declared on 6.2.05. An affidavit has been filed by the Chairman, NPSC, subsequently substituted by the NPSC contesting the case of the petitioners. In the affidavit, it is stated in:er alia, that in pursuance of a requisition sent by the Education Department vide leter dated 15.2.05, the NPSC had issued Advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.2.05. The applications so received were also scrutinized by the NPSC in terms of the criteria laid down by the Government in the requisition and the NPSC in terms of its practice selected candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:6 i.e. for every cine vacancy, 6 applications were to be accepted. In the present case, there were 6 posts of Lecturer in Education and out of which 2 went to the backward tribes as against the reservation and as against general category 24 applications were selected and 4 applications were selected against backward quota for interview. It is further explained that the NPSC had made evaluation of the applications in terms of criteria for selection prescribed by the Government and the petitioner's application was rejected as against general category as the marks she had secured did not entitle her to be placed among the selected candidates for interview. Petitioner No. 2 was not called for interview as because on the date of her application, she did not possesses the requisite qualification i.e. BEd qualification. An affidavit was filed by petitioner No. 2 on behalf of the petitioners in reply to me affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. In the said affidavit in reply, contending that the method of selection adopted by the NPSC is arbitrary and not based on reason, it is also stated that the patio of 1:6 has not been applied strictly in respect of other posts. Stating that petitioner No. 1 secured 61.37% (1st Div.) in MA (Education) and 2nd Div. in BEd and petitioner No. 2 secured 60.12% (1st Div.) in MA (Education) and passing 1 st Div. in B.Ed, by result dated 21.5:05, it is also pointed out that petitioner No. 3 who had only secured 48.37% (2nd Div.) in MA (English) and completed her B.Ed, on deputation under SCERT like that of petitioner No. 2 was called for interview subsequently. Therefore, it is contended by them that it is a case of pick and choose and discrimination on the part of the NPSC. The name of petitioner No. 3 was struck off vide order dated 21.8.05 passed by this Court.

(3.) Heard Mr. Imti Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 i.e. Nagaland Public Service Commission and Mrs. Y. Longkumer, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent authorities.