DIGANTA GOGOI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, contenders for the post of Typist lodged with the Assam Secretariat and participants in a related selection process initiated by the advertisement No.B (E) 3/2006/26 dated 12.04.2007, are before this Court for being eliminated from the exercise at the stage, prior to the Viva-Voce. They have impugned the selection process to be illegal and unconstitutional and thus liable to be adjudged non est in law.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G. C. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel for the official respondents.

(3.) The pleaded version of the parties, in short, would have to be indispensably set out to better comprehend the arguments advanced. The petitioners being eligible in terms of the advertisement aforementioned, had responded thereto, offering their candidature and were thus called to appear in the Typing test in English and in Assamese held district wise. In the results of the said tests which were published in the issue dated 08.11.2008 of the local daily, the Assam Tribune, their names did not appear. In terms of the scheme of selection as set out in the advertisement, passing of the Typing test was an essential pre-condition for being eligible to take part in the viva-voce. According to the petitioners, the selection process is vitiated by bias, malafide and gross transgressions of the law of reservation pertaining to physically challenged candidates and women candidates as secured by the Assam Women (Reservation of Vacancies in service and posts) Act, 2005 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act). They have categorically contended that the Respondent No. 3 Shri Chandra Kanta Haloi at all relevant time was the Sr. Administrative Assistant of the Secretariat (Admn.), Department of the State and had been associated with the relevant examination, where his two sons were the candidates with them (petitioners) for the said posts. As a result, according to them, there was a possibility of his involvement in the decision making process regarding selection of his sons. Incidentally, the two sons of Respondent No. 3, namely__ Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were shown to have been passed the Typing tests and were thus called for the viva-voce test. The petitioners have further asserted that though indicated in the call letters to the candidates for the Typing test that short listed candidates five times the number of vacancies would be entitled to sit in the second test for assessing their Computer competence and viva-voce, in fact, only 64 candidates were determined to be eligible, which per se was in departure from the professed norms thus rendering the selection process invalid. This inexplicable deviation from decision of the Selection Committee taken in its meeting held on 30.09.2008 has also left the exercise vitiated by an incurable illegality. The Respondent No. 2 in his affidavit filed in WP (C) No. 912/2009, as the Secretary to the Secretariat Administration (Estt) Department of the State has disclosed that Typing speed tests were held in different districts of Assam under the direct supervision of the concerned Deputy Commissioner and that the answer scripts were evaluated by the officers of the rank of Under Secretary to the Govt. of Assam. The answering Respondent has averred that a Typing speed test was held to evaluate the typing skill of the candidates concerned on the basis of their performance, vis-a-vis the written passage given to them. While admitting that at the relevant point of time the Respondent No. 3 was the Sr. Administrative Assistant in the Secretariat Administration Department of State, the answering deponent has categorically denied that he had any substantial role in the selection process so much so, to vitiate the same as apprehended by the petitioners. The office note-sheet dated 27.06.2008 has also been cited whereby one Sri K. C. Bezbarua, Sr. Administrative Assistant had been deputed as the Invigilator for the Typing test in Kamrup (Metro) district, the petitioners' station, to obviate any possibility whatsoever of undue influence by the Respondent No. 3. The answering respondent has further stated that the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the sons of Respondent No. 3 in Typing tests (both English & Assamese) secured the following marks :