Tripura High Court
Souman Kumar Bhattacharjee vs The State Of Tripura And 6 Ors. ... on 15 March, 2021
Page 1 of 21
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA 111 of 2019
Souman Kumar Bhattacharjee, S/o Sri Pradip Kumar Bhattacharjee,
resident of Ramnagar, Road No. 8, Gangail Road, P.O. Ramnagar, P.S.
West Agartala, District- West Tripura.
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
1.The State of Tripura and 6 Ors. represented by the Principal Secretary
to the Government of Tripura, Forest Department, New Secretariat
Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
2.ThePrincipal Secretary, Department of Forest, New Secretariat Building,
New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
3.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Tripura,
Arannuya Bhavan, P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O.- Kunjaban, Agartala,
West Tripura.
4.The Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration), Government of
Tripura, Arannya Bhavan, P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O.-Kunjaban,
Agartala, West Tripura.
5.Shri Bikash Chowdhury, S/O. Sunil Chowdhury, Resident of Bachir
Nagar, P.O.-Rajnagar, District-South Tripura.
6.Shri Sanjoy Nath, S/O. Golok Nath, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Satnala, P.S- Kanchanpur, District North Tripura.
7.Shri Gopal Debnath, S/O. Haripada Debnath, Resident of Village-
Kadamtali, P.O.- Brajapur. District- North Tripura.
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : GA
WA 48 of 2019
Jakir Miah, S/O. Abdul Rab, Resident of Village and P.O.- khupilong,
P.S.- Killa, District- Gomati Tripura-799114.
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura and 6 Ors. Represented by the Principal
Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Forest Department, New
Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West
Tripura.
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
Page 2 of 21
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, New Secretariat
Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
3. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Tripura,
Arannya Bhavan, P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala,
West Tripura.
4.The Chief Conservator of Forest (Administration),
Government of Tripura, Arannya Bhavan, PN Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O.
Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
5.Bikash Chowdhury, S/O.- Sunil Chowdhury, Resident of Bachir
Nagar, P.O.- Rajnagar, District- South Tripura.
6.Sanjoy Nath, S/O.- Golak Nath, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Satnala, P.S.- Kanchanpur, District- North Tripura.
7.Gopal Debnath, S/O.- Haripada Debnath, Resident of Village-
Kadamtali, P.O.- Brajapur, District- North Tripura.
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : GA
Date of hearing : 15.12.2020
Date of delivery of Judgment : 15.03.2021
Whether fit for Reporting : No.
BEFORE
HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT
[S.G.Chattopadhyay, J]
[1] These Writ Appeals have been filed challenging the
common judgment and order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No.577 of 2015 and WP(C) No.332 of 2017.
Since the controversy raised in these writ appeals is identical, they
will be decided by this common judgment.
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
[2] For disposal of the appeals, brief reference to the factual
aspect would be necessary which is as under:
Advertisement No.F.2-2(3)Estt./FOR-2009/28356-88
dated 10.02.2010 was issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest, Tripura (Respondent No.3) inviting applications for filling up
of 50(fifty) vacancies in the post of Forester(Group-C). The break-
up of vacancies indicated 40 posts to be un reserved, 02 posts for SC
candidates, 04 for ST candidates and remaining 04 for Ex-
Serviceman. The said advertisement mentioned the required age,
educational qualification, physical standard etc. for the candidates to
be eligible for applying for the said posts.
Pursuant to the said advertisement, the appellants
submitted their applications at the office of respondent no.3. Upon
receipts of their applications, separate token nos. were allotted to the
appellants for the purpose of oral interview.
[3] Thereafter, by notice dated 30.06.2010 published by
respondent no.4 in a local daily called 'Daily Desher Katha', the
appellants along with other eligible applicants were asked to report
for oral interview as per schedule contained in the said notice.
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellants,
reference to the individual facts of each of the appeals would be
necessary at this stage which is as under:
Facts of Writ Appeal No.48 of 2019
[Jakir Miah vs.State of Tripura and Ors.]:
[4] By the said notice mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, appellant Jakir Miah was allotted token no. UD/816 for
interview and he was asked to report for interview at the forest rest-
house, Paratia under Udaipur Forest Division on 07.07.2010. The
appellant accordingly faced interview at the aforementioned place on
the appointed date.
[5] On the basis of the performance of candidates in
interview held from 17.05.2010 to 05.06.2010, respondent no.3
published notice [Annexure-P/4] in local dailys called 'Dainik
Sambad' and 'Daily Desher Katha' containing list of the successful
candidates along with their token nos and they were asked to report
for walking test and physical measurement at the forest range office,
Battala, Sadar on 27.02.2014 at 5 A.M. for selection to the said post
of Forester (Group-C).
[6] The said notice contained, amongst others, the names
and token nos of private respondents 5, 6 & 7. But it did not contain
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
the name and token no of the appellant. According to the appellant,
he performed very well in the interview. Despite such performance,
result of his interview held on 07.07.2010 was not published by the
respondents.
[7] Eager to know the result of his interview, appellant then
filed an application dated 26.02.2014[Annexure-P/5] to the SPIO in
the office of respondent no.3 seeking the following information:
i) marks scored by each of the candidates in interview
along with the full particulars of those candidates.
ii) score-sheet of all candidates who appeared for
interview followed by physical measurement test.
iii) details of the selection criteria including the orders
issued by the Govt. in this regard.
[8] In reply to his RTI application, the SPIO vide letter
dated 12.03.2014 [Annexure-P/6] informed him that the information
could not be provided since the recruitment process was not
complete. Aggrieved appellant, filed appeal against the order of
SPIO before the first appellate authority [respondent no.4] with a
request to supply the information sought by him in his application
dated 26.02.2014. The first appellate authority vide order dated
27.06.2014[Annexure-P/7], directed the SPIO to supply the
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
information to the appellant within 15 days and in case it was held by
the SPIO that he was not under any obligation to supply the
information in the given circumstances, the SPIO would issue a
speaking order within 7 days for better understanding of the
appellant.
[9] The SPIO by order dated 18.07.2014 informed the
appellant that the information could not be disclosed to him due the
embargo under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the
recruitment process was not complete. The aggrieved appellant then
lodged a complaint at the State Information Commission for
intervention and relief. The State Chief Information Commissioner
vide order dated 22.12.2014 [Annexure-P/13] held as under:
".....If the selection process is complete, the marks of the selected
candidates and information whether they satisfy the physical measurements and
other physical tests may be given. Individual physical measurement of the selected
candidates will be an invasion of privacy and hence need not be given. The
interview marks obtained by the Appellant as the Appellant asked for the same
during the course of hearing may also be furnished"
[10] In terms of the said order dated 22.12.2014 of the State
Chief Information Commissioner, the appellant was informed by the
SPIO of the office of respondent no.3 vide his letter dated
02.02.2015 that the appellant scored 211 marks in his interview. By a
further communication dated 08.01.2015[Annexure-15] the said
SPIO disclosed to the appellant list of all selected candidates for the
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
post of Forester (Group-C) along with the marks scored by them in
oral interview.
[11] Thereafter, the petitioner also downloaded the merit list
of the candidates [Annexure-P/16] from the official portal of the state
respondents which contained the marks obtained by the candidates
who appeared in the interviews conducted from 21.05.2010 to
03.07.2010 and on 14.07.2010 for recruitment to the post of Forester
(Group-C) in 50 vacancies. The appellant noticed discrepancies
between the information supplied to him by the SPIO and the merit
list of candidates downloaded by him from the official portal of
respondent no.3. In this regard, the appellant stated in his writ
petition as under:
"26. That, the Petitioner downloaded from the website of the Dept.
of Forest, Govt. of Tripura, list of the candidates, who had been selected and
appointed in the post of Forester in 2014 along with marks, height and chest
measurement. There are variation in between the information supplied to the
Petitioner by the SPIO and the list of selected candidates along with marks
obtained, height and chest measurement, walking test performance as downloaded
from the website of the Forest Department, Govt. of Tripura. In the list of 50
selected candidates supplied by the SPIO, the name of Sanjay Nath, S/O-Golok
Nath appeared at Serial No.7 and marks obtained by him had been shown to be
458. But in the list downloaded from the website, the name of Sanjoy Nath
appeared at Serial No.45 and marks obtained by him had been shown as 184.
Similarly, name of Sukhajoy Tripura, S/O- Babujoy Tripura appeared at Serial
No23 of the list provided to the Petitioner by the SPIO and mark obtained by him
had been shown as 433. But in the list downloaded by the Petitioner, name of
Sanjoy Tripura appeared at Serial No.31 marks obtained by him had been shown
to be 195"
[12] Similar discrepancies in marks were also found in
respect of private respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7 and some other
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
candidates. In this context, he has furnished the information in a
tabular form in paragraph 29 of his writ petition which is as under:
"
Sl.No. Token No. Name of the candidates Marks obtained by the Marks obtained by
Candidates in the list the candidates in
of the SPIO the list downloaded
by the Petitioner
from the Website
"
[13] Therefore, by filing the writ petition, the appellant
challenged the appointment of respondent no. 5, 6 and 7. According
to the appellant, respondent 5, Bikash Choudhury scored 190 marks
and respondent no 6 Sanjoy Nath scored only 184 marks as per the
information uploaded in the official portal of the respondents
whereas in the information supplied to the appellant in response to
his RTI application they were shown to have scored 279 marks and
455 marks respectively. The appellant claimed that if the result
published by the respondents in their official portal is taken into
consideration he scored higher marks than that of the respondents
and therefore the appointment of respondents were liable to be
cancelled and he was entitled to be appointed in their place. With
regard to the appointment of respondent no.7 Gopal Debnath, the
appellant stated that respondent no.7 was not eligible under the
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
relevant recruitment rules because the recruitment rules provided that
for becoming eligible for the post, height of the UR category
candidate should be 163 cms and fully expanded chest should be 84
cms with expansion of 5cms. But the normal chest of respondent
No.7 was measured as 75cms which in no case would be 84 cms with
expansion of 5cms. Normal chest of 79 cms was required to have an
expanded chest of 84 cms by expansion of 5 cms and as such
appointment of Gopal Debnath, respondent 7 who had a normal chest
of 75cms was illegal.
[14] Separate counter affidavits were filed by the official
respondents as well as by the private respondents. The appellant also
filed rejoinders. Official respondents 1,2,3 and 4 also filed additional
counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit sworn by Dr.K.Sasikumar,
Addl. Secretary to the Government of Tripura, it has been stated that
according to the revised employment policy of the State
Government, 70% of the vacancies were to be filled up on the basis
of seniority cum merit and 30% on the basis of need. An overall
assessment of suitability of the candidates were made in terms of the
said policy of the State Government and in this process the selection
committee did not find the appellant eligible for appointment to the
said post of Forester(Group-C). With regard to the variation of marks
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
indicated by the appellant, it has been asserted by the state
respondents in their said affidavit that due to technical glitches there
were errors in the merit list uploaded by them in their official website
and moreover, such information uploaded on their official website
was not authenticated by digital signature. In the additional affidavit
dated 06.3.2017 sworn by Shivananda S.Talwar, Addl. Secretary to
the Government of Tripura in the Forest Department the following
averment was made:
"3. That, the deponent begs to state further that the Recruitment
Rules for the appointment of Forester and the Government employment policy of
the relevant time did not provide for making break up of criteria, parameter wise
marks for the purpose of selection. In the absence of such enabling provision as
standard aggregate marks was fixed before the interview in consultation with the
member of the selection Committee.
Deponent further begs to state that in the interview the following
factors were taken into consideration for selection of candidates a)Educational
qualification b)Good physique c)Sound health fitness for field works-arduous
nature of field work d)Merit e)Need.
The member of the Selection Committee considered the above
mentioned factors in evaluating a candidate for his suitability and fitness for being
appointed as Forester.
It is stated that, although no separate marks were allotted for the
aforesaid each items, the members of the selection committee awarded marks in
lump, after consultation among themselves. It is submitted that the procedure as
such adopted by the selection committee without fixing marks for each of the
above items and awarding marks in lump after over all evaluation of a candidate
cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary
I deny and dispute all other contentions of the said paragraphs
except the contention relating to the matter of records."
[15] In his counter affidavit dated 23.06.2016 private
respondent 5 Bikash Chowdhury stated that the selection committee
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
assessed his suitability for the post on the basis of interview
conducted in accordance with the government policy and
recommended his name for appointment. Private respondent 6
Sanjay Nath, submitted his counter affidavit on the same line and
stated as follows:
"In reply I submit that the selection committee after following due
procedure in accordance to Government Employment Policy had conducted
interview assessed seniority cum merit and need based and thereafter selected and
appointed me along with other candidates"
Similar averment was made by private respondent no 7
Gopal Debnath.
[16] In his rejoinder dated 15.09.2016 in response to the
counter affidavits of the state respondents, the appellant stated that
the selection process was absolutely unfair and arbitrary which was
vitiated by favouritism and manipulation. According to the appellant,
the respondents did not even assess his performance in the interview
and therefore, he was not called for physical and walking test.
Though the appellant scored higher marks in the interview than that
of the private respondents, the private respondents were appointed in
the said post and appointment was denied to him in a most arbitrary
and unfair manner. In his rejoinder dated 29.03.2017, the appellant
claimed that the statement of the state respondents with regard to the
errors in the marks uploaded in their official portal was vague,
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
baseless and untrue because the appellant through an application
under RTI Act also procured soft copy of the CD which contained
the marks of the candidates and the same was uploaded in the official
portal of the respondents and the appellant contended that he would
be able to produce the CD at the time of hearing of the case.
[17] In his rejoinder submitted against the counter affidavit
of the private respondents the appellant also made following
averment vide para 5:
"5 That, the Petitioner submits, that, in response to the request
made by the Petitioner for information under RTI by his application, dated
24.09.2015, the SPIO, O/o the PCCF, Tripura vide letter, dated, 05.10.2015, gave
response. From the said response it is clear that, the merit list (tabulation mark) in
respect to the selection for the post of Forester,2010, published in the website of
Forest Department has been admitted to be true and from that answer it is clear,
that, there had been manipulation in respect to marks given to the Petitioner and
on the basis of marks which was actually obtained by the Petitioner, the Petitioner
ought to have been selected for the post of Forester.........
A copy of the RTI application, dated 24.09.2015 and
information given by the SPIO on 07.10.2015 are annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure P/20 and Annexure P/21"
Facts of WP(C)332 of 2017
[Souman Kumar Bhattacharjee vs. State of Tripura and Ors]:
[18] Pursuant to the same advertisement dated 10.02.2010,
present appellant had also applied for the post of forester in Group-C
under the Forest Department, Government of Tripura as a candidate
in the open category. It was mentioned in the advertisement that an
open category candidate within the age group of 18 to 37 years
having educational qualification of HS(+2) stage passed or of
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
equivalent standard and possessing height of 163cms and fully
expanded chest of 84 with expansion of 5cms would be eligible to
apply for the post. It was also mentioned in the said advertisement
that the candidate should be medically fit and capable of walking 25
kms within 4 hours. Being eligible in all respects, the appellant
applied for the said post. His application was received in the office of
respondent no. 3 and token No Sadar 447 dated 3.3.2010 was allotted
to him for the purpose of interview. By notice dated 30.06.2010
published in local daily named 'Daily Desher Katha' the appellant
was asked to appear for oral interview on 03.07.2010 between 10 a.m
and 5 p.m. Pursuant to the said notice, the appellant faced the oral
interview.
[19] Thereafter, by notice dated 25.02.2014 published in
local dailys named 'Dainik Sambad' and Daily 'Desher Katha'
respondent no 3 published the list of successful candidates whose
oral interview were taken on 17.05.2010 to 05.06.2010 and they were
asked to report for walking test and measurement of physical
standard on 27.02.2014 at 5 O'clock in the morning in the Forest
Range Office at Battala, Agartala for selection to the post of Forester
(Group-C).
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
[20] According to the appellant, he faced interview and
performed very well in the interview. But the respondent did not
publish the result of his interview and he was not called for any
physical test and walking test. According to the appellant the whole
selection process was vitiated by manipulation, favouritism and
nepotism. It was averred by him that though the respondents were
required to make proactive disclosure of the whole selection process
and publish it on public domain in terms of the provisions of Right to
Information Act, they did not do so. He stated that he collected
necessary documents from appellant Jakir Miah wherefrom he came
to know that there were huge discrepancies in the marks actually
scored by respondents 5,6 &7 and the marks shown to have been
scored by them. According to the appellant, Jakir Miha downloaded
the information uploaded in the official portal of the state
respondents which revealed that respondent no 5 scored 190 marks,
respondent 6 scored 184 marks and respondent 7 scored 217 marks
whereas in the information supplied in response to his application
under RTI Act, by the department to Jakir Miah it was stated that the
said respondents obtained 279 marks, 458 marks and 455 marks
respectively in their interview. Moreover, as per the information
collected by the appellant from Jakir Miah, respondent 7 Gopal
Debnath was also found disqualified for the post in terms of the said
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
advertisement dated 10.02.2010 because he did not have a fully
expanded chest of 84 cms. The RTI information supplied to appellant
Jakir Miah revealed that his normal chest was 75 cms and therefore
in no case it would be 84 cms with expansion of 5 cms. It was further
stated by the appellant that Jakir Miah also obtained from the
respondents a soft copy of the CD containing the marks actually
obtained by the candidates including respondents 5, 6 and 7 which
was later uploaded by the respondents in their official website.
According to the appellant he obtained 209 marks in oral interview
as per the information uploaded on the official website of the
respondents and such marks obtained by him was higher than the
marks of respondent No 5 & 6, he deserved to be appointed by
cancelling the appointment of the respondents whose appointments
were made unfairly, illegally and arbitrarily.
[21] In this writ petition also, separate counter affidavits
were filed by the official respondents and private respondents. Since
they have replicated the stand taken by them in the other writ
petition, it would not be necessary to refer to these counter affidavits
in detail. In paragraph 20 of their counter affidavit, the State
respondents stated that errors occurred in the information which was
uploaded in their official website with regard to the marks obtained
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
by the candidates in oral interview. The said averment of the state
respondents is as under:
"20. That in regard to the statement made in paragraph 12 of the
writ petition it is stated that, information was sent from the statistical section of the
forest department through e-mail for uploading the list along with the marks to
ICAT department for uploading in Departmental Website. Some errors occurred
and wrong number were uploaded in the website as compared to the list submitted
by the Selection Committee. The authenticity of the list uploaded is always subject
to verification of list prepared by selection committee."
[22] While admitting the fact that there were discrepancies
arising out of errors in the information uploaded in their official
portal compared to the marks actually obtained by respondents 5,6
and 7, the state respondents stated in their affidavit that the entire
selection process was carried out by a selection committee duly
constituted for the purpose in terms of the existing employment
policy. The appellant did not file any rejoinder against the said
statements made by the official respondents in their said counter
affidavit.
[23] In the course of hearing, learned single Judge perused
the original records containing the marks obtained by private
respondents 5,6 and 7 and found that respondent No.5 obtained 279
marks and respondent No.6 and 7 obtained 458 and 455 marks
respectively and the records were duly authenticated by the members
of the selection committee with their signatures and even the
interpolation appearing in the marks of respondent No.6 Sanjay
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
Nath, was initialled by the members of the said selection committee.
It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that appellants Jakir Miah
obtained 215 marks and Souman Kumar Bhattacharjee obtained 209
marks which were lesser than the marks obtained by the private
respondents. Having held so, the learned single Judge declined to
interfere with the selection and appointment of the private
respondents and dismissed the writ petitions by a common judgment
dated 30.11.2018 observing as under:
"9. The petitioner in WP(C) 577 of 2015, as per record
secured 215 marks in the interview whereas the petitioner in
WP(C) 332 of 2017 secured 209 marks. It may be noted that
as per the records, Gopal Debnath, the respondent no.7
received 439 marks. The pages of the original records are
signed by the members of the selection committee and their
signatures on the records are not under challenge. So far, the
respondent no. 5 and 7 are concerned, this court does not
find any material based on which, a valid challenge can be
maintained. Their appointment cannot be questioned as the
respondent no.5 belongs to SC category. The chest
measurement of the respondent no.7 is the only basis for
challenge.
10. In the writ petition, it has been clarified well by the
official respondents and such statement has not been
contoverted by either of the writ petitioners, at least the writ
petitioner of WP(C) 332 of 2017. So far, Sanjoy Nath is
concerned, there is interpolation, but the said interpolation is
duly signed by one of the members of the selection
committee. It is really unfortunate that even in the final
records such interpolations exist arousing suspicion. This
court is totally at dismay the way the records have been
prepared by the selection committee. Serious displeasure is
noted. In future, after finalization of the records, such
records should be converted in PDF and be authenticated by
the digital signature. Only the digitally signed records be
uploaded in the website.
11. Be that as it may, in the circumstances as emerged, this
court is unable to interfere with the selection or the
consequential appointment made in favour of the private
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
respondents. Having observed as such, these writ petitions
are bound to fail and accordingly, the writ petitions are
dismissed. "
[24] Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that the
learned single Judge did not consider that the discrepancies
appearing between the result uploaded in the official portal of the
respondents and the marks which were shown to have been obtained
by the private respondents and communicate to the appellant in
response to his RTI application. Further argument on behalf of the
appellants is that appointment of Gopal Debnath, respondent no. 7
was completely illegal because he did even not fulfil the eligibility
criteria of having a normal chest of 79cms for appointment as a
Forester. It has been further argued by learned counsel of the
appellants that in view of the manifest illegality in the selection
process, the learned single Judge should have quashed the
appointments of the private respondents directing the state
respondents to consider selection and appointment of the appellants.
[25] Counsel appearing for the state respondents on the other
hand argued that the entire selection process was conducted by a
selection committee duly constituted for this purpose and the learned
single Judge after perusal of the original records came to the
conclusion that the private respondents obtained higher marks than
the marks obtained by the appellants in the interview. As a result the
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
learned single Judge declined to interfere with the selection and
appointment of the private respondents. It is further submitted by the
government counsel that it was categorically stated by the state
respondents in their affidavit that errors occurred in information
uploaded by them in their official portal with regard to the marks
obtained by the candidates in interview which was not also
authenticated by any digital signature and as such the appellants
could not claim appointment on the basis of such unauthenticated
information. Leaned counsel, therefore, urged for dismissal of their
appeals.
[26] It is a settled proposition of law that even a selected
candidate does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed. In
Shankar Sandash vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 it
was held by the Apex Court that candidates included in merit list has
no indefeasible right to appointment even if vacancy exists which
was followed in its later decisions in Asha Kaul (Mrs.) and Anr. vs.
State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors reported in (1993) 2 SCC 573,
Hanuman Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 10
SCC 742, Union of India vs. SS Uppal reported in (1996) 2 SCC 168,
Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad vs. Dr.Anand Prakash
Mishra and Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 264, S.Renul and Ors. vs. State of
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
AP and Anr (2002) 5 SCC 195 and in many other cases. In the given
case none of the appellants is on the select panel. They seek
cancellation of the appointments of the private respondents merely
on the ground that the result uploaded by the state respondents in
their official portal did not match with the marks shown to have been
actually obtained by them in interview. The official respondents in
their counter affidavit have admitted such discrepancies and
contended that the errors resulted from technical glitch and
moreover, the information uploaded in their official website was not
authenticated by digital signatures. The learned single Judge perused
original records contained in the relevant file of the department and
found that the records were duly authenticated by the members of the
selection committee by putting their signatures.
[27] It is no case of the appellants that if the appointments of
the private respondents are cancelled, the appellants can be appointed
in their place. Therefore, their claim for cancelling the appointments
of the private respondents is not justifiable because law does not
envisage negative equality. In Arup Das vs. State of Assam and Ors.
reported in (2012) 5 SCC 559, the Apex Court held as under:
"19. In a recent decision rendered by this Court in State of
U.P. Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma [(2006) 3 SCC 330], this Court
once again had to consider the question of filling up of
vacancies over and above the number of vacancies
advertised. Referring to the various decisions rendered on
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
this issue, this Court held that filling up of vacancies over
and above the number of vacancies advertised would be
violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution and that selectees could not
claim appointments as a matter of right. It was reiterated
that mere inclusion of candidates in the select list does not
confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies
remained unfilled. This Court went on to observe further
that even if in some cases appointments had been made by
mistake or wrongly, that did not confer any right of
appointment to another person, as Article 14 of the
Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if the
State had committed a mistake, it cannot be forced to
perpetuate the said mistake." [Emphasis supplied]
[28] It is true that there is manifest carelessness on part of the
official respondents in conducting the selection process including
publication of result for which the learned Single Judge has also
expressed his displeasure. But the appellants could not make out any
case to interfere with the selection & appointment of the private
respondents.
Having held so, we find no merit in the appeals.
Resultantly, the appeals stand dismissed.
(S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY), J (MR.AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Saikat Sarma, P.A
WA 111/2019 and
WA 48/2019
