Gauhati High Court
Ratul Deka vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 10 June, 2024
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010103032021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/159/2021
RATUL DEKA
S/O. LT. BISHNU RAM DEKA, R/O. HABERIKURA, P.O. PUTHIMARI, P.S.
KAMALPUR, DIST. KAMRUPM, ASSAM, PIN-781380.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
2:THE MEMBER SECRETARY
ASSAM STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
HIGH COURT OLD BUILDING CAMPUS
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI 01
3:THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE CUM CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY
KAMRUP M ASSAM
4:SRI MRINAL KUMAR NATH
S/O SRI AJAN NATH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND PO CHANGSARI
PS CHANGSARI
DIST KAMRUP R ASSAM
78110
Page No.# 2/7
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate
Mr. N. Gautam, Advocate
For the respondent(s) : Mr. M. Mahanta, Advocate
Mr. A. Sarma, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 07.06.2024.
Date of judgment : 10.06.2024
JUDGMENTG AND ORDER
(CAV)
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
1. This writ appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved
with the judgment dated 18.06.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(C) 929/2017. In the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged the
appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Contractual Peon in the office of the
respondent No. 3.
2. The respondent No. 3, i.e. Chairman, District Legal Services Authority,
Kamrup (M), published an advertisement dated 07.06.2016 for filling up a
temporary post of Peon in the establishment of the District Legal Services
Authority, Kamrup (M) District. In total 306 applications were accepted by the
respondent No. 3, however, 200 candidates were called for viva voce on
22.01.2017 and the remaining were called on 23.02.2017. The appellant and the
respondent No. 4 appeared in the viva voce on 22.01.2017. The result of the
Page No.# 3/7
viva voce was declared on 24.01.2017 and the respondent No. 4 was selected
and subsequently appointed.
3. The appellant challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 mainly on
the ground that the respondent No. 4 had never served, in any manner, as Peon
or in any capacity in subordinate judicial court/office and, therefore, his
appointment is vitiated, because in the advertisement itself it was provided that
preference would be given to those candidates who had already worked, or
working temporarily in the subordinate court/office.
4. The learned Single, after considering the submissions advanced on behalf
of the respective parties, has recorded the following findings while denying relief
to the appellant, as prayed for in the writ petition:
"7. Records produced reveal that by advertisement was made pursuant to
Memo No. DJK/2433-34 dated 07.06.2016 issued by the respondent no.3. The
advertisement was for filling up temporary posts of (i) LDA-cum- Typist, and (ii)
Peon. As per Clause 2(b), in respect of the post of peon, the required education
qualification was as follows - "Class-VIII standard pass. Preference will be
given to those candidates who have already worked or working temporarily as
contractual/ fixed pay/ wages basis in subordinate Judicial Court/Offices."
8. On the point as to whether the petitioner and the respondent no.4 had the
requisite qualification of having worked in "Judicial Court/office", the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.4 had made their respective
erudite submissions, which led the Court to search the internet on use of symbol
(/), which is termed as the slash, the stroke, the virgule, the oblique, the
solidus. It appears from the materials available in the internet that one of the
uses of the said symbol is to depict relationship like one appearing in the
following sentence - "They were in love/hate relationship". The symbol of
slashes are also commonly used to signify alternatives as in "and/or" and
"his/her/they". The said symbol is also has usage to replace and, per, or or.
Slashes can also appear in place of the word and, as in "She's a writer/
producer/actor," or the word or, as in "You can post on your favorite social
media platform: Twitter/ Instagram/Facebook." In the State of Assam, the
police and the judiciary use the said symbol in lieu of a comma, for example,
"The accused has committed offence punishable under Sections 302/323/
325/326/149/34 IPC." In job advertisements, it is found to be used as
suggesting alternatives, for example "Each candidate shall carry his/her proof
of identity". The said symbol is also used to show a period time, for example
Page No.# 4/7
"The 1989/90 football season was marred by frequent scandals.", "This office
is open Tuesday/Saturday each week." Thus, it is seen that the symbol (/)
appears to have a varied/ variety of usage. Accordingly, the Court is of the
considered opinion that in the present case in hand the words "Judicial
Court/office" cannot be given a limited use to mean that the word "office" must
be one attached to "judicial Court", as sought to be projected by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner.
9. On a perusal of selection record produced, it is seen that the Selection Board
consisted of four members. It is seen that while the petitioner got the score of 33
by adding the marks awarded by all four members, the respondent had got the
score of 37 marks by adding the marks awarded by all four members. In this
order, for the sake of convenience, the respondent no.1 is referred to as
Chairman and the three members are referred to as 2 nd Member, 3rd Member
and 4th Member. The Board had awarded the following marks to the petitioner
and respondent no.4:-
Petitioner (Ratul Deka)
Sl. Board Presentation General Experience Total
Member Knowledge
Member
Member
Member
Respondent No. 4 (Mrinal Kumar Nath):
Sl. Board Presentation General Experience Total
Member Knowledge
Page No.# 5/7
Member
Member
4 4th Board 4 4 2 10
Member
10. Therefore, on the basis of comparison of marks scored by the petitioner vis-
a-vis the respondent no.4, the Court is unable to accept the contention of the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of respondent
no.4 was whimsical, arbitrary or that there was non-adherence to the terms
and conditions contained in the employment advertisement or that the rules of
the game was changed after the game had been played. Moreover, even if for
the sake of argument, it is accepted that on ground of experience, the petitioner
ought to have been awarded 8 marks on the basis of 2 marks each by 4
member selection body, as the petitioner was awarded a total of 7 marks, the
addition would be of 1 mark, which would not affect the final result.
11. In the case of Dr. Anita Puri & Ors. (supra) , the Supreme Court had held,
inter alia, to the effect that when an advertisement stipulates a particular
qualification as the minimum qualification for the post and further stipulates
that preference should be given for higher qualification, the only meaning it
conveys is that some additional weightage has to be given to the higher
qualified candidates and that by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to
mean that a higher qualified person automatically is entitled to be selected and
appointed and it was further observed that in adjudging the suitability of
person for the post, the expert body like Public Service Commission in the
absence of any statutory criteria has the discretion of evolving its mode of
evaluation of merit and selection of the candidate and that the competence and
merit of a candidate is adjudged not on the basis of the qualification he
possesses but also taking into account the other necessary factors like career of
the candidate throughout his educational curriculum, experience in any field in
which the selection is going to be held, his general aptitude for the job to be
ascertained in course of interview, extracurricular activities like sports and
other allied subjects, personality of the candidate as assessed in the interview
and all other germane factors which the expert body evolves for assessing the
suitability of the candidate for the post for which the selection is going to be
Page No.# 6/7
held. Moreover, in the case of Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu & Ors. (supra) , it was held
to the effect that a mere rule of preference meant to give weightage to the other
qualification cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or rule of complete
precedence."
5. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
has placed heavy reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent No. 3 in the writ petition and has contended that in paragraph 6 of
the said counter affidavit it is clearly stated that the Selection Board, in its
meeting held on 29.02.2016, had passed a resolution to give weightage to the
candidates with similar experience in subordinate judiciary. However, while
selecting the respondent No. 4 pursuant to the advertisement, the condition of
giving weightage to those candidates who have already worked, or working in
subordinate judicial court/office, has not been followed. It is contended that the
learned Single Judge has completely ignored this aspect of the matter and has
passed the impugned judgment.
6. Per contra, Mr. M. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No. 3, and Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 4 have vehemently opposed the appeal and have submitted that
the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant and, therefore, no interference is called for.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
have also scrutinized the records produced by the office of the District Legal
Services Authority, Kamrup (M), relating to the recruitment in question.
8. It is true that the Selection Board, in its meeting held on 29.02.2016 had
resolved to give special weightage to the candidates having similar experience
in subordinate judiciary, but in Clause 2(b) of the advertisement issued on
Page No.# 7/7
07.06.2016, it is provided that preference will be given to those candidates who
have already worked or working temporarily as contractual/fixed pay/wages
basis in subordinate judicial court/offices. It is not specifically provided that
preference will be given only to those candidates who have already worked or
working in subordinate judicial court or office attached to it. It is also to be
noticed that the Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 21.12.2016 for
fixing the criteria for selection of the candidates, had not fixed any separate
marks for the experience gained by any candidate while working in the
subordinate judiciary or office attached to it.
9. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the view that no fault can be found in the view taken by the learned
Single Judge to the effect that the words "judicial court/office" cannot be given
a limited use to mean that the word "office" must be one attached to "judicial
court". Apart from that, it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 4 has
secured more marks than the appellant and this fact cannot be ignored.
10. In such facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any case for
interference. Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
The records produced before this Court be returned to the learned counsel
for the District Legal Services Authority, Kamrup (M).
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
