Tripura High Court
Sri Pratik Modak vs _V_E_R_S_U_S_ on 17 January, 2023
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
_A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
W.A. No.160 of 2022
Sri Pratik Modak
.....Appellant
_V_E_R_S_U_S_
The Union of India and Others
.....Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.
Mr. B. Majumder, Deputy SGI.
Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.
Whether fit for reporting: YES/NO
Judgment and order dated 17th January, 2023
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr.
D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A., Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI and Mr.
K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.
[2] The appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"i. Admit the appeal.
ii. Call for the records.
iii. After hearing both the parties, quash & cancel the order dated
25.05.2022 passed by the L'D Single Judge, in WP(C) No.333/2021 &
grant the relief sought for by the appellant in WP(C) No.333/2021."
[3] The present petition has been filed under Article-226 of the
Constitution of India read with Chapter-VA Rule-2(2) of the Gauhati High
Court Rules, as applicable against the impugned order dated 25.05.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in connection with WP(C) No.333 of 2021.
[4] The facts in brief of the present are that this appeal has been filed
being partly aggrieved against the order dated 25.05.2022 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(C) No.333 of 2021. By the said judgment, the learned
Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition,
the appellant contended that by advertisement, dated 26.03.2022, the Chief
Executive Officer, Tripura Rural Livelihood Mission took up the exercise for
filling up various posts amongst which one post of Programme Manager
(Procurement) reserved for UR candidates.
[5] The appellant having all the requisite qualification applied for the
post of Programme Manager (Procurement). The appellant token number is
30393. Thereafter, the appellant successfully qualified all the selection
procedure and became eligible to get offer of appointment. The appellant filed
several representations, before the respondents but, till date no response. The
respondents have kept in abeyance the offer of appointment given to the
appellant. But the respondents have issued offer of appointment in respect to
other candidates selected through the same selection process. Against such
arbitrary decision of the respondents, the appellant filed the writ petition, which
after hearing by the learned Single Judge dismissed vide order dated
25.05.2022. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
[6] Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
that vide memo dated 15.12.2020, the appellant along with other candidates
were requested to appear for orientation on Rural Attachment Test (for short,
RAT) after completion of all eliminating process mentioned in this petition on
17.12.2020, at Sonar Tori Guest House, Agartala. In the said memo, against the
head of CAT-1, for the post of Programme Manager (Procurement) the
appellant's token No.30393 was clearly reflected and accordingly, the appellant
was sent for RAT.
[7] The learned Single Judge has failed to consider that in a selection
process when explicitly or implicitly there is no cut off marks or bench mark
for RAT the candidate who successfully qualified in three stages of the
selection test cannot be shown the door on the basis of his performance in RAT
though there was no cut off mark or bench mark for RAT. The learned Single
Judge also failed to consider that all the three stages of selection focus was on
to test the candidate's aptitude and orientation to find out whether the candidate
was suitable for the post and for this reason, the learned Single Judge
committed manifest error of fact holding that RAT was mainly for testing the
aptitude of the candidate for the post and for this reason the selection board in
its discretion rightly considered the appellant's performance who scored 18 out
of 50 marks as poor not satisfactory.
[8] Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel further averred that the
appellant being lived for seven days in a rural area with a rural family and as
such the appellant familiarized himself with the tabulations and charms of the
rural life and after such stay, the appellant submitted field report which was
presented b y the appellant and for assessment of presentation 50 marks was
earmarked, as such, the learned Single Judge committed error by
overemphasizing the evaluation of presentation of the RAT and total
perspective and objective of the RAT has been lost in this process, causing
serious prejudice to the appellant.
[9] The learned Single Judge absolutely failed to consider that
Articles-14 & 16 of the Constitution of India has been infringed upon the
respondents. The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the
selection board cannot act like an unruly horse and there is no room for
unfettered discretion without any definitive and known parameter for
exercising such discretion.
[10] The entire short-listed candidate shall undergo this as part of the
selection process. During the Rural Attachment Test the candidates shall have
to stay in a rural poor family continuously for 07 (seven) days. The details of
the field attachment test is designed in such a manner so that the candidate's
empathy and working relationship with the poor, interest and understanding of
the rural area, local area specific possibilities and constraints, capability to
empathize, facilitate and communicate with the rural people can be assessed
objectively. Field Report (FR) has to be submitted and a Presentation of about
15-20 minutes has to be made by each candidate on the field
experience/findings in the debriefing to the recruitment panel. The candidates
those who are found to have failed to stay 7 days continuously in rural areas
shall be disqualified for further evaluation on the basis of report.
[11] Now, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel has submitted that
out of 50 marks, the appellant has got 18 marks. Since there is no cut off marks,
the appellant ought to have been recommended and by not recommending the
appellant, the respondents have acted arbitrarily and as such, this court should
interfere in the process and deem the appellant as successful in the recruitment
test.
[12] However, as per the recruitment policy of TRLM Society, from
the RAT maximum three times of the post (category wise) shall be short listed
in order to prepare the merit list. The appellant was the only candidate who was
short listed for Rural Attachment Test [RAT] for the position of Programme
Manager (Procurement) and as per the interview Board, the appellant was not
found suitable based on RAT.
[13] For the purpose of reference, the findings of the learned Single
Judge may be reproduced hereunder:
"If the reply filed by the respondent No.6, the memorandum dated
20.05.2017 has been annexed as Annexure-R/2. All the stages for the
recruitment test, as noted, have been quite succinctly provided in the said
memorandum and this court finds that there is no allegation about the first
three stages of the recruitment process from the petitioner. His grievance
is only in respect of the Rural Attachment Test [RAT].
Solely on the basis of the result of RAT, the final merit list is prepared. As
stated earlier, the RAT has been designed to assess the empathy and
capacity to interact with the rural people and understand the specific
possibilities and the constraints in their empowerment. A candidate who is
given the rural attachment for purpose of test and evaluation of a report.
The performance on the both counts will be assessed under 50 marks. As
stated earlier, the petitioner got 18 marks. Admitted by, there is no cut off
marks. If there were cut off marks and the petitioner got the cut off marks,
then definitely the situation would be been otherwise. But if there is no cut
off marks, the opinion of the interview board will prevail unless that is
grossly perverse. The presentation is made before the members of the
interview board and therefore, nobody can assess the sensibility of the
petitioner while presenting the particular issue or interacting with the
members of the board. 18 in comparison to 50, being total marks, for such
post definitely denotes a very poor performance.
Having observed thus, this court does not find any infirmity in process and
as such the relief has urged by the petitioner cannot be granted. In the
result, this writ petition stands dismissed."
[14] In view above discussion and after observing the findings of the
learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that this Court cannot sit as an
appellate authority upon the selection committee. It is not open for the
appellant to having faced the notification and the selection procedure to point
out that he was not selected under the Rural Attachment Test [for short, RAT].
Now he cannot allege that his non-selection is wrong since the selection
procedure is already done and the selection board has decided the issue. This
Court finds no fault as pointed out by the learned Single Judge and neither
malice nor any perversity is proved. In view of the same, the impugned order
dated 25.05.2022 in case No. WP(C) No.333 of 2021 of the learned Single
stands needs no interference and thus, affirmed.
[15] Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
A. Ghosh
