Tripura High Court
Smt. Sangita Banik vs The State Of Tripura on 1 March, 2021
Page - 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P(C) No.553/2016
Smt. Sangita Banik,
D/o Sri Kanailal Banik, Resident of Nabagram, ONGC Para,
P.O- Fulchari, PS- Manubazar, Sabroom South Tripura.
............... Petitioner(s).
Vrs.
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Chief Secretary Govt. of Tripura New
Secretariat, Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura-799006.
2. The Special Secretary and Director, I and C (HHS),
Directorate of Handloom Handicrafts and Sericulture, Pandit
Neharu Complex, Gurkhabasti, PIN-799006
3. Sri Suman Das,
S/o Sri Samiran Ch. Das Vill and PO- Karailong, PS-
Teliamura, Khowai District- 799205
4. Sri Dronajit Debbarma,
S/o Sri Rana Kumar Debbarma Vill- Bhaktapara, PO- Samatal
Padmabil PS- Khowai, District- Khowai, PIN- 799201
5. Sri Dhiraj Deb,
S/o Late Dhirendra Ch. Deb Vill and Po- Ajagar Tilla, PS-
Khowai, Khowai District, PIN- 799201
6. Sri Chandan Debnath,
S/o Late Subal Ch. Debnath Vill and PO- West Champamura,
PS- Budhjangnagar, District- West Tripura, PIN- 799008
7. Sri Subra Sekhar Debbarma,
S/o Parendra Debbarma Vill- Lankapuara Bari PO-
Chhankhola, Dist- Khowai, PIN- 799201
8. Sri Sunirmal Debbarma,
S/O Sri Prasanna Debbarma, Vill- Krishnanagar, Adviser
Chowmuhani, Agartala West Tripura, PIN- 799001
9. Smt Pinki Das,
D/o Sri Hrishikesh Das, Vill- Rabindrapally, PS and PO-
Belonia, South Tripura, PIN- 799155
10. Sri Amrita Bhowmik,
S/o Sri Kanu Bhowmik, PO and Vill-Murapara, PS- Kakraban,
Udaipur, Gomati District, PIN-
11. Sri Biswajit Goswami,
S/o Gopal Goswami Vill- Netajipara, PO and PS- Sabroom,
South Tripura District, PIN-799145
12. Sri Subrata Bhattacharjee,
S/o Sri Sadan Bhattacharjee, Vill and PO- Saudarpara
(Factory), PS- Kumarghat, District- Unakuti, PIN- 799264
............ Respondent(s).
Page - 2 of 8
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S. Pandit, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, Govt. Advocate.
Mr. G. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Date of hearing and
Judgment & Order : 1st March, 2021.
Whether fit for reporting : NO
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(Oral)
(Akil Kureshi, CJ)
The petitioner has challenged her non-selection to the post of
Assistant Demonstrator (Sericulture) as also the General Employment
Guidelines issued by the Government of Tripura, General Administration
(Personnel & Training) Department on 12.01.2015 on the basis of which
selection to the post in question was made.
[2] Brief facts are as under:
On 23rd May, 2015 Directorate of Handloom Handicrafts &
Sericulture, Government of Tripura issued a public advertisement inviting
applications from eligible candidates for ten vacancies for the post of Assistant
Demonstrator (Sericulture) in the Pay Band No.2, pay scale of Rs.5700-
24,000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2100. Out of the ten vacancies, three would be
reserved for Scheduled Tribe and two for Scheduled Caste, remaining five
vacancies will be filled up by unreserved category candidates. Eligibility criteria
for the post was as under:
Page - 3 of 8
Eligibility for applying the post
i) H.S (+ 2 Stage) Examination
Passed in Science Group.
Preferable in Bio-Science.
ii) One year Certificate course
passed in Sericulture from any
recognized Institute of
Central/State Govt.
[3] Petitioner possess the educational qualifications for appointment to
the post in question. She therefore applied as an unreserved category candidate.
The respondents conducted selection process including oral interviews and as a
culmination of which prepared a list of candidates who appeared before the
interview board for selection giving details of the marks allocated to them. The
petitioner was awarded a total of 48 marks which was much lower than several
other unreserved category candidates had secured. The petitioner was therefore,
not offered appointment. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has filed
the present petition.
[4] Learned counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions:
(i) The educational qualification required for the post were
(a) SCC examination passed in Science group;
(b) One year certificate course passed in Sericulture
from a recognized institute.
While assessing the merit of the candidates the department
completely ignored the performance of the candidates concerned in
the certificate course of sericulture. He pointed out that the
petitioner had topped her batch in sericulture certificate course for
which she got no weightage.
Page - 4 of 8
(ii) Counsel drew our attention to the result sheet published by
the department and contended that petitioner was also given just 4
out of 10 marks for co-curricular activity without proper
consideration.
(iii) Counsel drew our attention to the General Employment
Guidelines issued by the General Administration Department,
Government of Tripura in which for selection of candidates for
Category 2 posts, evaluation of a maximum 40 marks to be
allocated for educational qualification, following is provided:
"(ii) Maximum marks to be allotted to evaluate Educational
Qualifications : 40 Marks.
(a) 30% - 44% Marks obtained in qualifying Exam. = 14 Marks.
(b) 45%-59% Marks obtained in qualifying Exam. = 28 Marks.
(c) 60% and above Marks obtained in qualifying Exam. = 40
Marks."
Counsel submitted that bunching of candidates with range of
marks for allotting identical merit marks of 14, 28 and 40 in three categories is
wholly unjust and arbitrary. He argued that a candidate who has got 45% marks
in the qualifying examination would secure 28 marks out of 40 for educational
qualification which would also be the case for a candidate who has secured 59%
marks. This is wholly unjust.
[5] On the other hand, Govt. Advocate opposed the petition
contending that:
(i) The entire selection process was carried out in a transparent
manner by following the General Employment Guidelines.
(ii) These guidelines have been issued to reduce the discretion
of the interview boards.
Page - 5 of 8
(iii) There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable about such
guidelines. Bunching of marks scored in the qualifying examination is based on
different divisions, generally recognized in the education field.
[6] Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused documents on record, we may refer to the General Employment
Guidelines in question which was issued by the General Administration
Department of the Government on 12.01.2015. These guidelines provide for
breakup of marks under different heads that shall be allotted by the interview
boards during selection to various posts under the Government. Since we are
concerned with Category -2 post, we may reproduce guidelines concerning the
said category which read as under:
" Category-2 - Selection of candidates for Group-C Posts other
than Persons with Disabilities.
(i) 1(one) mark to be awarded to the candidates for each year
since passing the examination (acquired minimum qualification) as
prescribed for the post in the Recruitment Rules of that post or year (s)
of waiting for job after passing the qualifying examination subject to a
maximum of 20 marks.
(ii) Maximum marks to be allotted to evaluate Educational
Qualifications : 40 Marks.
(a) 30% - 44% Marks obtained in qualifying Exam. = 14 Marks.
(b) 45%-59% Marks obtained in qualifying Exam. = 28 Marks.
(c) 60% and above Marks obtained in qualifying Exam. = 40
Marks."
(iii) Maximum marks to be allotted to evaluate General Knowledge -
30 marks
(a) Knowledge on subject to be evaluated out of = 7 marks
(b) Intelligence to be evaluated out of = 8 marks
(c) Aptitude and interest on the field to be evaluated out of
= 7 marks
(d) Sense of Social Commitment to be evaluated out of
= 8 marks
(iv) Maximum marks to be allotted to evaluate in co-curricular field
(Culture, Sports etc. = 10 marks."
[7] Perusal of these guidelines would show that a total of 100 marks
would be awarded to a candidate which would be broken up in following
categories:
Page - 6 of 8
(i) 20 marks for passage of time since acquiring basic
educational qualification.
(ii) 40 marks to be allotted for educational qualifications.
(iii) 30 marks for General Knowledge.
(iv) 10 marks for Co-curricular activities.
These sub-categories also carry further guidelines. For example:
for General Knowledge, 30 marks would be sub-divided into different heads
such as knowledge on subject, intelligence, aptitude and interest in the field etc.
Regarding educational qualifications, a candidate who has scored between 30%
to 44% in qualifying examination would be awarded 14 out of 40 marks, one
who has scored between 45% to 59% would be awarded 28 marks and one who
has secured more than 60% marks would score full 40 marks.
[8] It can thus be seen that these guidelines aim at limiting the
discretionary powers of the interview boards and to the possible extent make the
selection transparent and non-discretionary. In fact, the exercise of awarding
marks for passage from acquiring in eligibility criteria as well as educational
qualifications is a matter of pure arithmetic. It is only in respect to evaluation of
General Knowledge (30 marks) and co-curricular activity (10 marks), the
interview board exercises the certain discretion. We do not think that bunching
of performance of the candidates in 3 categories for the purpose of educational
qualifications can be stated to be arbitrary or unreasonable. As correctly pointed
out by the Government counsel, the candidate between 30 to 44 percent of marks
is treated as having passed the examination in 3rd division. Candidate between 45
to 59 percent would be treated as 2nd division pass and one, who scored over
60%, would have passed in 1st division. It is neither possible nor correct on our
Page - 7 of 8
part to suggest that for each percentage of mark there should be varying degree
of merit marks to be awarded. One must realize that different candidates would
have passed the qualifying examinations at different points of time, thereby
making the task of the interview board extremely difficult in standardizing the
different results. In some cases, the examination boards may also be different.
Further, in such fields where educational assessments are to be made, the same
should ordinarily be left to the wisdom of the authorities. Unless, the policy is
found to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable, the Court would not interfere.
[9] With respect to evaluation of the performance of the qualified
candidates only on the basis of higher secondary results ignoring the
performance for the second element of qualifying examination of sericulture
pass certificate, again the same must rest with the wisdom of the recruiting
agency. The General Guidelines in question are meant for range of Government
posts. Guidelines applicable to Category-2 posts do not give any clear directive
that in a case where essential qualifications consist of passing of two separate
qualifying examinations, performance of the candidates in both such
examinations must be combined. Under the circumstances, the interview board
had a discretion to take into account the performance of a candidates in the basic
qualifying examination of SSC pass. If within its wisdom, by uniformly applying
this principle, the interview board has prepared a select list, we do not think the
same would require any interference. The institutes giving such trainings and
issuing certificates in sericulture, may be different thereby making the task of the
authorities to standardize the performance of different candidates more difficult.
Page - 8 of 8
[10] We have seen the marks allotted to other candidates as compared
to the petitioner, even if she were to be given a few marks more for co-curricular
activities she would not secure a place in the select list.
[11] In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any,
also stands disposed of.
(S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY),J. (AKIL KURESHI),CJ.
Dipankar
