RUNU MEDHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTHING could be more glaring an example of ministerial interference even in the matter of selection and appointment relating to public employment. The petitioner is before this Court as she has been deprived of her appointment inspite of the fact that she has topped the list of successful candidates. Such deprivation is on the basis of the dictation of the particular Minister to which the members of the Selection Committee shamelessly responded and translated the dictation into reality by recommending the respondent No. 7, although in the selection, it was the petitioner who on merit scored march over all others.

(2.) THE petitioner alongwith others responded to the advertisement dated 17. 11. 2007 by which applications were invited for filling up certain posts in the different Foreigners Tribunals throughout the State. In this proceeding, we are concerned with the post of LDA/bench Assistant/typist in the office of the Foreigners Tribunal (No. 2) Morigaon. Accepting the candidature offered by the petitioner, the authority invited her to the written test held on 3. 8. 2008 where she appeared. While the petitioner secured 64 1/2 marks, the respondent No. 7 secured 54 1/2 marks.

(3.) THE written test was followed by type test, computer test and oral interview. Altogether the petitioner secured 88. 16 marks,while the respondent No. 7 secured 78 marks. In the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee, the petitioner obtained 1st position, while the respondent No. 7 obtained 5th position. Surprisingly enough, inspite of such a position, the committee in its meeting held on 22. 12. 2008 considering the recommendation of the Minister, Food and Civil Supplies and Minority Affairs, recommended the respondent No. 7 for appointment. The committee considering such recommendation, adopted resolution to appoint the respondent No. 7, although, in the minutes of the meeting it took into account the merit list as per which, it was the petitioner, who should have been approved for appointment. Thus, the committee yielded to the pressure of the Minister and gave weightage to his desire instead of the merit position obtained by the candidates in the competitive examination.