MD. ATIKUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. V.K. Barooah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhayay, learned standing counsel for the Irrigation Department.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking appointment in the post of Section Assistant in the establishment of the Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department, Guwahati Project Circle.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide advertisement published in newspapers on 28.08.2010, applications were invited for recruitment in respect of vacancy of various Grade-III posts including the Section Assistant (70 posts) under the District Level Offices in Irrigation Department. It is projected that the petitioner had applied for the post of Section Assistant. The said advertisement envisaged a written test of 100 marks for the subjects of English (35 marks), Mathematics (35 marks) and General Knowledge (30 marks). It was also provided that successful candidates would be called for viva voce test carrying 30 marks. It is submitted that the petitioner was allotted roll no. 13258. The result of written test was declared on 07.06.2011, wherein the petitioner was short listed as successful candidate and he was called for oral interview scheduled on 29.06.2011. As per the final select list published in the newspaper on 08.10.2011, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department (respondent No.3) had announced selection of 42 candidates for filling up 42 vacant posts of Section Assistant including 9 candidates for the Guwahati Circle. It is submitted that as per RTI information received, the petitioner had obtained 79 marks in the written test and 16.50 marks in the oral interview, as such, he had secured total marks of 95.50. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had given a RTI application for being furnished with copy of answer sheets of all 42 selected candidates, but by way of RTI reply dated 15.11.2011, he was informed that the answer sheets of all 42 selected candidates would be provided subject to taking their consent and that he would have to bear a cost of Rs.21,000/- and that his own answer sheet would be provided on receipt of Rs.500/- by way of bank draft. Accordingly, it is submitted that owing to the prohibitive cost for getting the requisite information, the petitioner has made a prayer in this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to disclose the marks obtained by the successful candidates in Guwahati Circle. It is projected that the Irrigation Department had, inter-alia, advertised 70 No. posts for the Section Assistant but they had declared the results in respect of 42 candidates/ posts only, as such, 28 vacant posts were still to be filled up. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents could easily appoint the petitioner in any one of the 28 vacant posts of Section Assistant. By referring to the affidavit in opposition of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one person securing lesser marks than the petitioner was appointed and, as such, the selection process was not done correctly, not in order of merit, and in a non- transparent manner.