APURBA KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the select list of candidates for Village Level Extension Workers for pre-sgrvice training for the Barpeta District of the State of Assam.

(2.) The case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that an advertisement was issued by the Director of Agriculture, Assam inviting applications from the candidates who are inclined to serve in agriculture department in rural areas of Assam for admission into one year Village Level Extension Workers (for short "VLEW") training course commencing in the year 1995-96 in three (3) training institutes located in Arunachal (Cachar), Kahikuchi (Kamrup) and Naltali (Nagaon) As per the said advertisement published in the local English Daily "the Sentinel" of 18th November, 1994, applications were to be submitted to the District Agricultural Officer of the respective districts on or before 31.12.94 and the candidates were to appear in the written test and interview. The said advertisement, however, stated that the candidates having rural background will be given preference and that selection of the candidates will be subjected to usual reservation in favour of the reserved categories of candidates such as SC, ST(H), ST(P), OBC and others as per the Govt. Rules and orders issued from time to time. The said advertisement further stated that the selected candidates will have to undergo one year pre-service VLEW training in any of the three institutes of Assam ami on successful completion of training course the candidates will be eligible for recruitment as VLEW anywhere in the State of Assam against the vacant posts that may arise from time to time, but the training would not give any guarantee for absorption in the Government job and is not to be treated as commitment as such. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners amongst others appjlied to the District Agricultural Officer, Barpeta and they were asked to appear in the written test held on 19.2.95. They were thereafter called for an interview before the District Selection Committee held on different dates from 22.6.95 to 29.6.95. The District Selection Committee which comprised of respondent Nos. 4 to 10 then prepared a panel list of 202 candidates for pre-service VLEW training for Barpeta District on the basis of the results of the written test and oral interview. All the petitioners were included and placed in different positions according to their merit in the said panel list of 202 candidates. Thereafter, the said panel list for Barpeta District was sentrto the Director of Agriculture, Assam, at Guwahati. The Director of Agriculture, Assam, then sent a final select list dated 16.3.96 of 26 candidates and in the said final list the names of respondent Nos. 11 to 15 who were not included in the said panel list prepared by the District Selection Committee of Barpeta District and the names of respondent Nos. 16 to 26 who were placed below the petitioners in order of merit in the panel list prepared by the District Selection Committee, Barpeta, found place, but the names of the petitioners did not find place. Aggrieved by the said final select list dated 16.3.96, the petitioners have moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the said final list and for directing the respondents to prepare a fresh final select list from the panel list of candidates prepared by the District Selection Committee of Barpeta District strictly on the basis of merit and subject to usual reservation in favour of the reserved categories of candidates as per the Government rules and order issued from time to time.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent No. 2, the Director of Agriculture, Assam stating, inter alia, that after the preparation of the panel list, the District Agricultural Officer, Barpeta, submitted a select list of 202 candidates to his Directorate but it was found that the select list was not prepared by mai.ntaining the 20 points Roster of reservation and that some urban candidates were included contrary to the terms of the advertisement. The said select list was, therefore, re-casted and as there were initially only 13 vacancies for Barpeta District, only 13 candidates in order of merit subject to the reservation in the 20-point Roster were included in the select list prepared by the Directorate, but the vacancies for Barpeta District increased from 13 to 26 by March, 1996 and accordingly, a comprehensive select list of 26 candidates was prepared by the then Director of Agriculture, Assam, and sent to the District Agricultural Officer, Barpeta, by the impugned letter dated 16.3.96. It has been specifically stated in while the candidates with higher marks have been excludediand even some candidates who were not amongst the 202 candidates selected and placed in the panel list by the District Selection Committee, Barpeta District, have been included. Mr. Borbora stated that all this was done for the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 1, but a fresh selecl list will perhaps have to be prepared after taking into account the merit of the candidates and the reservation for the reserved categories of the candidates as per Government orders and rules issued from time to time. He, however, pointed out that the 26 candidates named in the impugned final selection lisrt dated 16.3.96 have in the meanwhile completed their training but their appointment as VLEW has not been made because of the interim order passed by this Court.