Prasant Kumar Baruah vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1016 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010191632020




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/5796/2020

         PRASANT KUMAR BARUAH
         S/O. LT. RAJAT CHANDRA BARUAH, R/O. OLD AMOLAPATTY BEHIND
         BAKUL BARI SCHOOL, INDU PHUKAN PATH, P.O. SIVASAGAR, DIST.
         SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-785640.



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF OIL AND
         NATURAL GAS, SASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI, PIN-100070.

         2:OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.

         ASSAM AND ASSAM ARAKAN BASIN JORHAT ASSET
         HUMAN RESOURCE AND EMPLOYEE RELTION
         CINNAMARA
         JORHAT-785704
         ASSAM REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
         HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT 5A-5B
         NELSON MANDELA ROAD
         VASANT KUNJ
         NEW DELHI
         PIN-110070.

         3:THE DIRECTOR (HUMAN RESOURCE)
          OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
          DEENDAYAL URJA BHAWAN 5A NELSON MENDELA MARG
         VASANT KUNJ
          NEW DELHI
          PIN-110070.

         4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCE)
                                                                        Page No.# 2/7

              OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
              ASSAM ASSET
              NAZIRA
              DIST. SIBSAGAR
              ASSAM
              PIN-795685.

             5:THE HEAD MEDICAL SERVICES

              OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
              ASSAM ASSET ONGC HOSPITAL
              DIBRUGARH
              DIST. SIBSAGAR
              ASSAM
              PIN-786540.

             6:THE GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCE)
              IN CHARGE
              HR-E.R. ONGC
              JORHAT
             ASSAM
              PIN-785704.

             7:MANAGER (P AND A) FOR BASIN MANAGER (A AND AAB)

              VISHNU BHAVAN
              A.T. ROAD
              JORHAT
              PIN-785002

                                         BEFORE
                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA




For the petitioner            : Mr. M.A. Sheikh,
                               Mr. K.U. Ahmed,
                               Mr. J. Bora,
                               Ms. F. Intaz,
                                                     .... Advocates.
For the respondents           : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla   ... Sr. Advocate.

Date of hearing               : 12.03.2021
Date of judgment              : 17.03.2021
                                                                                    Page No.# 3/7

                                 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

2. The petitioner, who has submitted his candidature for appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy) on contractual basis in pursuance to the Advertisement No.2020 issued by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (O.N.G.C.) Limited is aggrieved that despite being eligible for consideration, the authority did not call him to take part in the selection process, i.e. the interview.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that in terms of the Advertisement No. 2020, 1 post of contract Medical Officer (Homeopathy), 1 post of contract Medical Officer (Occupational Health-OH) and 4 posts of contract Medical Officer - Field Duty (FDMO) were to be filled up. The educational qualification required for the post of Contract Medical Officer (Homeopathy) was BHMS (Bachelor of Homeopathy Medicine and Surgery) with valid registration with the concerned statutory authority. The marks to be awarded in the selection process was as follows:-

"C. Selection Criteria: Following weightages shall be assigned to different parameters in the selection process:

Qualification    70 marks (60 marks for essential qualification & up to 10 marks
                 for any relevant higher qualifications)

Interview        30 marks

TOTAL            100 marks

                                                                      "

He also submits that besides the candidates being required to possess the essential qualifications for consideration to the vacant posts, experience was desirable for all posts as reflected in the Advertisement No. 2020. The petitioner who applied for the one vacant post Page No.# 4/7

of contract Medical Officer (Homeopathy), however, was not issued a call letter to enable him to take part in the selection process, while 11 persons out of the total 106 candidates who applied, were called for the interview for the said post. He also submits that the petitioner has 17 years experience as Medical Officer (Homeopathy), which should have been considered by the respondents.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that though a decision had been taken by the respondent authorities to limit the number of candidates to be called for interview in the ratio of 10 persons for one vacant post, the respondent authorities have called 55 candidates for filling up 4 vacant posts of Medical Officer - Field Duty (FDMO), which amounts to 13.5 persons for one post. He accordingly submits that as the respondent authority has called more than 10 persons for one post, the respondents should not have applied a different yardstick while calling candidates for the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy) and the petitioner should also have been called for the interview for the lone vacant post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy).

5. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents ONGC (respondent nos.2 to 7) submits that in terms of Regulations 6(3) of the Regulations 1980, the respondents had taken a decision to shortlist the candidates as a large number of candidates had applied for the various vacant posts. He submits that Regulation 6(3) of the Modified Recruitment and Promotion Regulations 1980 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Regulations 1980") is applicable to appointments in the ONGC. As per Regulation 6(3), the appointing authority has the discretion to decide the number of candidates to be considered for the vacancies, where the vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment are limited and the number of candidates who apply and fulfill the said criteria are more. However, the number of candidates to be considered for each vacancy could not be less than five times the number of vacancies to be filled up. Accordingly, it was decided by the Appointing Authority for short- listing of the candidates, whereby ten persons would be called for 1 vacant post and the same was approved by the competent authority. He submits that in respect of the lone post applied for by the petitioner, there were 141 applications and out of which 106 applicants met the eligibility criteria. After short-listing was done, while 10 persons were to be called for the lone post, 11 persons were called for the one vacant post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy), Page No.# 5/7

as the last two candidates had secured the same marks during shortlisting. He further submits that as per the short-listing of candidates done by the appointing authority, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.59 in terms of the marks awarded during shortlisting. Accordingly, the petitioner was not called for interview. He submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in B. Ramakichenin alias Balagandhi v. Union of India and Others , reported in (2008) 1 SCC 362, short-listing can be validly adopted by a selection committee, even if there is no rule providing for short-listing, nor any mention of it made in the advertisement calling for applications for filling up vacant posts. He also submits that just because the 10 candidates for one vacancy ratio had not been applied for the four posts of Medical Officer- Field duty (FDMO), the same does not mean that a wrong or mistake committed should be perpetuated.

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. In the case of B. Ramakichenin (supra), the Apex Court has held that it is well settled that the method of short-listing can be validly adopted by the selection committee, even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, if there is a large number of candidates who apply and it is not possible for the authority to interview all. The Apex Court further held that for valid short-listing there has to be two requirements, which are - (1) it has to be on some rational and objective basis and (2) if a prescribed method of short-listing has been mentioned in the rule or advertisement then that method alone has to be followed.

7. In the present case, Regulation 6(3) of the Regulations 1980 provides for the Appointing authority to decide the number of candidates to be considered for such vacancies, if the number of candidates who applied for the vacancies are more than the vacancies. The number of candidates to be shortlisted however, cannot be less than five for one vacancy. The short-listing may be done by enhancing the qualification and/or experience of the candidates. Regulations 6(3) is reproduced herein below:-

"6. Filling up of vacancies by direct recruitment:

(3) All applications for direct recruitment shall be scrutinized by the Appointing Authority who shall reject such applications of the candidates who do not fulfill the laid down criteria and submit the list of candidates who fulfill the said criteria for consideration for direct recruitment by a Selection Committee constituted by the Corporation in this behalf and such Selection Committee shall consist of not less than three members:

Page No.# 6/7

Provided that where the vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment are limited and the number of candidates who apply and fulfill the said criteria are more, the Appointing Authority shall decide the number of candidates to be considered for such vacancies and may, accordingly enhance the criteria for qualification and/or experience.

Provided further that the number of candidates to be considered for such vacancies shall be five times the number of vacancies to be filled and where the number of such candidates are less than five times the vacancies to be filled, all the eligible candidates shall be considered by the Selection Committee.

8. In the case of B. Ramakichenin (supra), the Apex Court has held that shortlisting can be resorted to where there are a large number of eligible candidates who apply for the post and it is not possible to interview all the candidates. As the eligible candidates who had the requisite criteria for consideration for appointment for the one post of Medical Officer (Homeopathy) was 106, it is the view of this Court that it was possible for the respondents to interview all the 106 candidates/applicants. However, as can be seen from Regulation 6(3), the Appointing authority can resort to short-listing where there are a larger number of eligible candidates vis-à-vis the limited seats available, subject to the condition that the number of candidates should not be less than five times the number of vacancies to be filled. The criteria for short-listing of the candidates for selection to be made in pursuant to the vacant post in the Advertisement No. 2020, as approved by the respondents is reproduced below:-

"1. 10 candidates for each vacancy may be shortlisted.

2. The weightages may be allocated in the following manner:

(i) Weightage for %age of Marks obtained in MBBS/BHMS - 70 (e.g. 80% in MBBS will have weightage of 56)

(ii) Weightage for having relevant and inline PG qualification- 15

(iii) Weightage for having inline post PG qualification - 15

TOTAL- 100

3. The shortlisting may be done based on the total score obtained by the individual Page No.# 7/7

applicants. In case of bunching or more than one candidate at cut-off mark, all such candidates may be shortlisted."

9. A perusal of the list of candidates who were considered during shortlisting and which has been made on the basis of marks obtained in the shortlisting process shows that while the person at Serial No. 1 has secured 62.89 marks, the petitioner who is at Serial No. 59 has secured 41.93 marks. Regulation 6 (3) of the Regulation 1980 allows for the shortlisting of candidates and provides that the number of candidates to be considered can be decided by the Appointing Authority. As the Appointing Authority has decided the number of candidates to be considered in respect of a vacancy to be ten, as per Regulation 6 (3) of the Regulation, 1980 and as the criteria for shortlisting has been made and applied, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner, when the same criteria for shortlisting had been applied to all 106 candidates, including the petitioner. The petitioner was not called for the

interview for the lone vacancy, in view of having secured the 59 th position during the shortlisting process. Also just because the number of candidates called for filling up the 4 vacant posts of Medical Officer- Field duty (FDMO), after the shortlisting, was beyond the ratio of 10 candidates for 1 vacant posts, the same does not mean that the same mistake or wrong committed should be perpetuated, while calling the candidates for interview for the post of contract Medical Officer (Homeopathy). In view of the above stated reasons, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the selection process undertaken by the respondents.

10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant