LAKHYAJYOTI BARUAH AND ANR Vs. OIL INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned advocate for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, the learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned advocate for the respondents No.1 to 5 (i.e. Oil India Ltd.), and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, the learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. T. Deuri, learned advocate appearing for the respondents No. 7 to 9, 11 to 14, 16 to 18 and 22 to 27. None appears on call for the remaining respondents No. 10, 15 and 19 to 21.

(2.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioners is that they had offered their candidature for the post of unskilled workers for the vacancies under the Doomdooma Employment Exchange and they are aggrieved by their non- selection.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that by letter dated 06.10.2010 issued by the respondent No.1 through its Manager (Employee Relations), the Assistant Employment Officer, Doomdooma Employment Exchange, Dist. Tinsukia was informed of the recruitment drive of the respondent No.1. It is submitted that as per paragraph 10(a) of enclosure thereto, being the Form of notification of vacancies, it was provided that only those candidates, who provisionally fulfill the criteria mentioned in the notification as on 01.10.2010 shall be called for Screening (written) test and that those who obtain 50% marks in screening (written) test will qualify for interview/ viva voce. By referring to the call letter for viva voce as served on the petitioners, it is submitted that no change in the selection criteria was disclosed therein. It is submitted that the viva voce test had been conducted. However, after much delay and without disclosing any reasons therefor, the result of such test was declared by the respondents No. 1 to 5 vide letter dated 28.02.2014, issued by the Resident Chief Executive of the respondent No.1 to the Assistant Employment Officer, Doomdooma Employment Exchange in respect of the notified 22 vacancies allotted for the said Employment Exchange by enclosing thereto the list of provisionally selected candidates in order of merit. It is submitted that from the said provisional select list, the petitioners became aware for the first time that for the written (screening) test, the qualifying minimum marks was reduced to 30% from 50% as notified earlier. It is submitted that the lowering of qualifying marks in the written (screening) test has been admitted by the respondents No.1 to 5 in their affidavit- in- opposition (hereinafter referred to as 'A/o' for short). Accordingly, it is submitted that (i) the rules of the selection was altered after the selection process was over, which in other words is stated as "changing the Rules of game after the game is over", and (ii) that by reducing the qualifying marks, more weightage was given to the marks obtained in viva voce test, which is not sustainable in view of the law in that regard, as settled by the Supreme Court of India in various judgments and in this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following cases, viz., (i) K. Manjusree Vs. State of A.P. & Anr., 2008 3 SCC 512, (ii) Tej Prakash Pathak Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 4 SCC 540, (iii) Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Supp1 SCC 206, (iv) Munindra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Rajiv Govil & Ors., 1991 3 SCC 368, (v) Mohinder Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 1991 1 SCC 662(vi) Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 1987 AIR(SC) 454: (1985) 4 SCC 417, and (vii) Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors., 1981 AIR(SC) 487: (1981) 1 SCC 722.