Tripura High Court
Sri Sadhan Ch. Debnath vs Vrs on 1 March, 2021
Page - 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.552/2016
Sri Sadhan Ch. Debnath
............... Petitioner(s).
Vrs.
The State of Tripura and 11 Others.
............... Respondent(s).
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.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
01/03/2021
(Akil Kureshi, CJ)
Except for minor individual differences, issues arising in the
present petition are identical to those raised in W.P(C) No.553 of 2016.
This petition was disposed of by a separate judgment and order passed
today, relevant portion of which reads as under :
"[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.
Page - 2 of 3
(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:
(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 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
Page - 3 of 3
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.
[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.
[6] Under the Circumstances, without recording separate reasons,
this petition also dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY),J. (AKIL KURESHI),CJ.
Dipankar
