Allowed

Arabinda Rabha and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 May 2019WP(C)/4532/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to the cancellation of the select list for 104 posts of Constables in the Assam Forest Protection Force and to a later advertisement for other posts. The court held the irregularities in reservation and candidate ratios could be rectified without cancelling the selection, set aside the cancellation notice, and directed appointment after rectification.

What did the court decide?

State Government's decision to cancel the Select List (letter dated 18.07.2016) and the impugned notice dated 17.08.2016 set aside; authorities to rectify the select list and issue appointment orders

Arabinda Rabha and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/18

¶2

GAHC010195552017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 4532/2016

¶5

1:ARABINDA RABHA and 3 ORS. S/O. SRI UREN CHANDRA RABHA VILL. JARUWAGAON P.O. KULSHI P.S. CHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP R ASSAM-781125.

¶6

2: SRI AKSHAY BORO S/O. SRI SUKURAM BORO VILL. HOLONGJULI P.O. KULSHI P.S. CHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP R ASSAM-781141.

¶7

3: SRI BANAJIT RABHA

¶8

S/O. SRI PRABHAT RABHA R/O. JARUAGAON P.O. KULSHI P.S. CHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP R ASSAM-781125.

¶9

4: SRI CHINTUMANI DAS S/O. SRI PRASANNA DAS VILL. GARGARA P.O. SIKARHATI P.S. PALASBARI DIST. KAMRUP R ASSAM-781125.

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Page No.# 2/18

¶12

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMM./PRINCIPAL SECY. DEPTT. OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY.-06. 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR FORESTS CUM THE HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM REHABARI GHY.-08. 3:THE ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR FORESTS ADMN and VIG OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS REHABARI GHY.-08. 4:THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR FORESTS ASSAM REHABARI GHY. 5:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST PLANNING OFFICER-I OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS CUM THE HEAD OF FOREST FORCES ASSAM REHABARI GHY.-08. 6:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER FRS DIVISION GUWAHATI CUM MEMBER SECRETARY CENTRAL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR AFPF CONSTABLE O/O. PCCF CUM HEAD OF FOREST FORCE REHABARI GHY. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U DAS Advocate for the Respondent :

¶13

Page No.# 3/18

¶14

Linked Case : WP(C) 2428/2017

¶15

1:ARABINDA RABHA and 13 ORS.

¶16

S/O SRI UREN CHANDRA RABHA, VILL- JARUWAGAON, PO-KULSHI, P.S. CHAYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781125

¶17

2: SRI AKSHAY BORO

¶18

S/O SRI SUKURAM BORO, VILL – HOLONGJULI, P.O. KULSHI, P.S. CHAYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781141

¶19

3: SRI BANAJIT RABHA

¶20

S/O SRI PRABHAT RABHA, VILL – JARUAGAON, P.O. KULSHI, P.S. CHAYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781125

¶21

4: SRI CHINTUMANI DAS

¶22

S/O SRI PRASANNA DAS, VILL – GARGARA, P.O. SIKARHATI, P.S. PALASBARI, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, 781125

¶23

5: SRI HEMANTA RABHA

¶24

S/O MONO RABHA, VILL-BAMUNI GAON, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, 781141

¶25

6: SMTI. JUNUMANI KALITA

¶26

D/O SRI HEMANTA KALITA, VILL- RAMPUR (KANPARA), P.O. RAMPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, 781132

¶27

7: SRI ARUP BAISHYA

¶28

S/O SRI DHANESWAR BAISHYA, VILL- DALBARI, P.O. DADARA DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781104

¶29

8: SRI ASHIM HALOI

¶30

S/O SRI ANANTA HALOI,VILL-BAIKUNTHAPUR, P.O. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP (M), PIN-781029

¶31

9: SRI RAMENDRA SAIKIA

¶32

S/O SRI AMRIT SAIKIA, VILL- RONGMAHAL, ATHGAON, P.O. RONGMAHAL, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781030

¶33

10: SRI GOVINDA KR. SINGH

¶34

S/O SRI GANESH KR. SINGH, R/O SPECIAL BRANCH HEAD QUARTER COMPLEX, D.P.I., KAHILIPARA, DIST. KAMRUP (M), PIN-781019

¶35

11: SRI MRIDUL INGZAL

¶36

S/O MANGALU INGZAL, VILL-JAPORIGOG, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781132

¶37

Page No.# 4/18

¶38

12: SRI SANJIB KALITA

¶39

S/O SRI HIREN KALITA, VILL- RAMPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (R), PIN-781132

¶40

13: SRI AMAR BORO

¶41

S/O SRI KARNESWAR BORO, VILL-MIZRA KHAT, P.O. BONDA PARA, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781135

¶42

14: SRI UDIT BHASKAR BORAH

¶43

S/O TAPAN KUMAR BORAH, R/O QUARTER NO. ASZ-014 (A), ASSAM STATE ZOO, R.G. BAROOAH ROAD, GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781005.

¶44

VERSUS

¶45

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 6 ORS.

¶46

REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT and FOREST DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶47

2: THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE, ASSAM, REHABARI, GUWAHATI – 8

¶48

3: THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMN & VIG.) ASSAM, O/o – PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, REHABARI, GUWAHATI – 8

¶49

4: THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ASSAM, REHABARI, GUWAHATI – 8

¶50

5: THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (PLANNING OFFICER – I), O/o – PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ASSAM, REHABARI, GUWAHATI – 8

¶51

6: THE CENTRAL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR RECRUITMENT OF AFPF CONSTABLE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, O/o PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ASSAM, REHABARI, GUWAHATI – 8

¶52

7: THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FRS DIVISION, GUWAHATI –CUMMEMBER SECRETARY, CENTRAL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ASSAM FOREST PROTECTION FORCE CONSTABLES, O/o – PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS ASSAM, REHABARI, GUWAHATI - 8

¶53

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J PATOWARI

¶54

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶55

Page No.# 5/18

¶56

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶57

ORDER (ORAL)

¶58

Date : 07-05-2019

¶59

Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners assisted by Mr. B.K. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 2428/2017 and Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 4532/2016. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department for the respondents.

¶60

These two petitions are clubbed and heard together, considering the identical issues raised, and accordingly, disposed of by this common order.

¶61

In WP(C) No. 4532 of 2016, the petitioners have challenged the cancellation of the Select List notified vide Notice dated 17.08.2016, by which the Select List prepared for the post of Constables in Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF, in short) as advertised on 23.07.2014 and 24.01.2016 was cancelled on the ground that such list suffers from infirmities of not following the constitutional provisions relating to reservation and also various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India regarding reservation laws and rules.

¶62

Petitioners also have challenged the subsequent advertisement issued on 14.04.2017 in WP(C) No. 2428 of 2017 after cancelling the said select list on the ground that if the aforesaid advertisement is allowed to be acted upon, the rights of the petitioners accruing on account of select list would be frustrated in the event they are successful in their petition. This Court, while issuing notice on 28.04.2017 and while considering the plea of the petitioners for suspending the said advertisement, on the basis of the clarification made by the Counsel for State that the aforesaid impugned advertisement pertains to appointment of 132 other posts of Constables which are different from the posts numbering 104 posts for which the selection had been made and is the subject matter in the other petition, which allayed the apprehensions of the petitioners, made the observation that no occasion has arisen before this Court to pass any stay of the aforesaid advertisement.

¶63

Page No.# 6/18

¶64

Accordingly, the matter has been proceeded on the assumption that there are 104 vacant posts of Constables to which the petitioners can be accommodated, in the event, they are successful in these petitions.

¶65

The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid cancellation of the Select List primarily on the ground that there was non-application of mind by the authorities and also is based on reasons which are not relevant or germane to the issue about the validity of the Select List. 7. It has been submitted that it is not the case of the State that the said recruitment process leading to the preparation of the Select List was vitiated by any fraudulent act on the part of any of the petitioners or candidates or that there was any mass-scale irregularities which would vitiate the entire recruitment process.

¶66

It has been submitted that apart from certain general allegations with the selection process that the entire selection process suffers from serious anomalies, that it was not transparent and fair and violated various rules relating to reservation and also various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no concrete instances have been pointed out by the authorities, indicating the seriousness of the anomalies or irregularities, which would warrant cancellation of the select list.

¶67

In this connection, Mr. K. N. Chourhuty, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the forwarding letter of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Assam to the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Assam, Environment and Forest Department, Dispur on 04.07.2016, which mentions about the aforesaid anomalies and urging the State Government to examine the same and take necessary decision in that regard.

¶68

In the said forwarding letter dated 04.07.2016, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force annexed a Note showing the aforesaid anomalies and irregularities and violation of Rules. In fact, the aforesaid Note is the basis for cancellation of the Select List.

¶69

In view of the above, before proceeding further, this Court has felt it appropriate to reproduce the said forwarding letter and the Note as these will have a direct bearing on the decision of this Court.

¶70

Page No.# 7/18

¶71

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & HEAD OF FOREST FORCE

¶72

PANJABARI :: GUWAHATI-37

¶73

Phone No. (Off.) : 233252 Email ID: [email protected]

¶74

From: D. Mathur, I.F.S. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests &

¶75

Head of Forest Force, Assam

¶76

¶77

Shri Sanjeev Kumar, I.A.S.

¶78

Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam,

¶79

Environment & Forest Department,

¶80

Dispur, Guwahati – 6

¶81

Sub: Recruitment of Constables of Assam Forest Protection Force (A.F.P.F.). Ref: Government letter No. FRE.100/2013/67 dated 03.11.2015 Sir,

¶82

In inviting a reference to the above, I am directed to inform you that the Central Selection Committee constituted by the Government vide letter under reference has submitted the Select List along with some other documents to this office. The cursory examination of the records submitted indicates that the entire selection process suffers from serious anomalies and was non-transparent, unfair and violated various Rules relating to Reservation, etc. and also violated various Judgments/Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the field in the subject matter.

¶83

A note has been prepared where some of the irregularities/illegalities detected in the records relating to the above recruitment process have been presented in brief, which is enclosed herewith. The Government is requested kindly to examine the issue

¶84

Page No.# 8/18

¶85

in its entirety and issue necessary order for further action to be taken in the matter.

¶86

Action at your earliest convenience is requested.

¶87

Enclo: A note with Annexure:

¶88

Yours faithfully,

¶89

(D. Mathur)

¶90

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests &

¶91

Head of Forest Force,

¶92

Assam, Panjabari,

¶93

Guwahati-37

¶94

Copy along with a copy of the above Note with Annexure forwarded to the P.S. to the Minister, Environment & Forests, etc., Assam for bringing the matter to the kind notice of the Hon’ble Minister.

¶95

Yours faithfully,

¶96

(D. Mathur)

¶97

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests &

¶98

Head of Forest Force,

¶99

Assam, Panjabari,

¶100

Guwahati-37

¶101

ASSAM FOREST PROTECTION FORCE CONSTABLE RECRUITMENT

¶102

The Central Selection Committee was directly constituted by the Hon’ble Minister, Environment & Forests himself vide his No. MFT.5/2015/58 dated 16.10.2015 communicated vide Government letter No. FRE.100/2013/67 dated 03.11.2015 (copy enclosed as Annexure-I).

¶103

All the original documents relating to physical Tests were collected directly by the central Selection Committee as per the order of the Hon’ble Minister vide No. MFT.5/2015/83 dated 23.12.2015 ( copy enclosed as Annexure-II).

¶104

Page No.# 9/18

¶105

A total of 104 candidates are recommended for selection/appointment as Constable by the Central Selection Committee ( copy enclosed as Annexure-III ).

¶106

Out of 104 candidates, 64 selected candidates belong either to Kamrup or Kamrup Metro Districts, which raises serious questions about the fairness of selection process.

¶107

The number of selected candidates district-wise is shown below:

¶108

(i) Kamrup (Metro) - 18 Nos. 64
(ii) Kamrup (Rural) - 46 “
(iii) Bongaigaon - 5 “
(iv) Jorhat - 8 “
(v) Sibsagar - 6 “
(vi) Golghat - 9 “
(vii) Nagaon - 5 “
(viii) Sonitpur - 3 “
(ix) Barpeta - 1 “
(x) Morigaon - 2 “
(xi)Baska - 1 “
Total - 104 Nos.

¶109

No. candidate has been selected from the rest of the 16 (sixteen) districts as below:

¶110

(i) Dhubri	- 0
(ii) Goalpara	- 0
(iii) Lakhimpur	- 0
(iv) Dhemaji	- 0
(v) Tinsukia	- 0
(vi) Dibrugarh	- 0
(vii) Nalbari	- 0
(viii) Darrang	- 0
(ix) Karbi Anglong	- 0 Hill Districts
(x) Dima Hasao	- 0

¶111

Page No.# 10/18

¶112

(xi) Karimganj - 0 Barak Valley Districts (xii) Cachar - 0 (xiii) Hailakandi - 0 (xiv) Kokrajhar - 0 B.T.C. Districts (xv) Chirang - 0 (xvi) Udalguri - 0

¶113

These 16 (sixteen) Districts, from where nobody has been selected represent a population of 1.60 crores out of 3.11 crore as per 2011 census. Thus, nobody has been selected from a population of 52% comprising in the above 16 districts.

¶114

Nobody has been selected from Barak Valley or Hill Districts or Bodoland Territorial Council except one candidate from Baska District.

¶115

Total of 3,518 candidates were called for interview against 104 posts, thus, making it a ratio of about 34 candidates per post. But serious anomalies have been detected in the number of candidates called for interview belong to various categories like Schedule Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Tribes (Plains), etc. as below, which are violative of the Reservation Rules and Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment on the subject:-

¶116

(i) Total no. of posts - 104 Nos. (ii) Total no. of candidates - 3,518 “ called for interview (iii) Ratio - 33.82%

¶117

Thus, candidates belong to various categories should have been called equal to number of posts in the category multiplied by 33.82. The figures are worked out as below :

¶118

Page No.# 11/18

¶119

Sl. No.	Category of	As per ratio candidates to	Actually called for
	post	be called for interview	interview
A	Generalpost	52X33.82 = 1,759	1,148
B	S.T.(Plain)	11X33.82 = 372	674
C	S.T.(hills)	5X33.82 = 169	79
D	S.C.	8X33.82 = 271	295
E	OBC/MOBC	28X33.82 = 947	1,322
	Total	3,518	3,518

¶120

Thus, it can be easily seen that the law governing Reservation and the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgments in this respect have been violated in calling the candidates for interview. The candidates who should have been called for interview have not been called and the candidates who should not have been called for interview have been called. Serious violation of Reservation Rules and principles of fairness and transparency and Hon’ble Supreme Court’s guidelines on the subject matter have been caused by such unfair process. The interview process thus gets seriously vitiated.

¶121

The final list of the selected candidates is also full of serious irregularities as the Reservation Rules have been openly flouted. The candidates belonging to Reserved Categories, who have qualified on merit should have been counted against the General Category but have been shown against the reserved category, which is grossly illegal and makes the entire process highly questionable. The cursory examination of the Select List as submitted by the Committee reveals that against 50 General Category posts –

¶122

(a) 15 OBC/MOBC candidates have qualified on merit;

¶123

(b) 17 ST(P) candidates have qualified on merit;

¶124

¶125

(d) 1 SC candidates have qualified on merit;

¶126

Thus, the above 37 candidates, as per Rules, should be counted against the General quota of seats but these candidates have been selected against their respective Reserved categories. A lot of successful candidates

¶127

Page No.# 12/18

¶128

belonging to Reserved categories have been deprived of selection and undeserving candidates have been selected in this interview process.

¶129

The selected candidate, Doli Kalita (Roll No. 18079), who belongs to General category, has been shown to be selected. On examination of the merit list, it reveals that her placement is at Sl. No. 162. It is beyond understanding as to how a General category candidate at merit serial no. 162 could come in General list with only 50 vacancies. Similar type of serious irregularities/illegalities have taken place in selection of many other candidates.

¶130

The entire process of recruitment is highly questionable, unfair and nontransparent and suffers from serious violations of the governing rules and the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject.

¶131

(D. Mathur)

¶132

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force,

¶133

Assam, Panjabari,

¶134

Guwahati-37

¶135

From the above Note, it is evident that one of the instances of the aforesaid irregularities can be found mentioned in note Nos. 4, 5 and 8, which deal with over representation of candidates from some districts and lack of representation from many districts.

¶136

As per the aforesaid Note, it has been shown that as many as 64 of the selected candidates are from Kamrup (Metro) and Kamrup (Rural) districts and the remaining from other seven districts. On the other hand, as many as 15 districts had not been represented at all.

¶137

Accordingly, the stand of the authorities is that the aforesaid representation of selected candidates from certain particular districts and non-representation from other districts clearly indicates irregularities in the said selection process.

¶138

Page No.# 13/18

¶139

As regard this, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that it is merely an inference without any basis, for the reason that merely because there is over representation of candidates in certain districts and non-representation from certain districts does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that there had been malpractice.

¶140

In fact, there is no hint or allegation at all that the candidates belonging to these over represented districts had indulged in any kind of malpractice, or received favour from the authorities or that the Selection Committee had adopted illegal means to grant favour to a few. In short, there is no allegation of any corrupt practice which led to the aforesaid over representation and under representation.

¶141

The other ground of irregularity as indicated in the Note is about the irregularity in the ratio of the candidates called for interview.

¶142

As mentioned in the aforesaid Note No. 9, though as per the required ratio, 1759 candidates were to be called in respect of General posts, only 1148 candidates were called. Similarly, in respect of candidates from ST(P), 372 candidates were to be called, but 674 candidates were called. As regards, ST(H) though 169 candidates were to be called, only 79 candidates were called. Similarly, for SC, though 271 candidates were to be called, they had called 295 candidates and in respect of OBC/MOBC, though 947 candidates were to be called for interview, as many as 1322 candidates were called.

¶143

Accordingly, it has been submitted that this variation in the ratio is clearly indicative of irregularity and malpractice.

¶144

There is yet another important issue raised in the Note as evident from Note No. 10, in which it has been alleged that many meritorious candidates belonging to the reserved category had not been adjusted against the General/unreserved category ignoring their merit, thus, depriving other candidates from the reserved categories to be appointed.

¶145

Since, many of the meritorious candidates belonging to reserved category were not adjusted as per merit under the unreserved category and by selecting them against the respective reserved category, it has led to deprivation of the rights of those candidates belonging to reserved category.

¶146

It has been mentioned in the Note No. 10 as many as 34 candidates, who were found to have been qualified to be appointed under the unreserved category by virtue of their merit but were not included under the unreserved category. Thus, many successful candidates

¶147

Page No.# 14/18

¶148

belonging to reserved candidates have been deprived of being selected.

¶149

There is another irregularity which has been pointed out, as mentioned in Note No. 11, in which it has been mentioned that one, Doli Kalita with Roll No. 18079, who belongs to General Category has been shown to be selected though as per merit list, she is found at Serial No. 162 and as such, it is difficult to accept how a candidate at serial No. 162 in the General list could be appointed against 50 posts under the unreserved category.

¶150

As regards the aforesaid allegations of the State authorities, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as regards non-inclusion of the meritorious candidates belonging to reserved category against unreserved posts, it is a matter for which necessary adjustment can be made by the authorities themselves, without disturbing the selection process.

¶151

It has been submitted that if it is found that there are many candidates belonging to the reserved categories, who by virtue of their own merit would be entitled to be placed under the unreserved category, that is an irregularity which can be rectified by the competent authority as it does not touch upon the merit of the recruitment process.

¶152

The State authorities, however, has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R. K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1995 SCC 1371 , to contend that the reservation rules have been violated. However, as mentioned above, if the aforesaid exercise is undertaken by the Selection Committee or by the State authority, the mandate of law can be adhered to without disturbing the assessment of the merit of the candidates.

¶153

In fact, such readjustment of the candidates under the respective categories will have no bearing on the selection process. As mentioned above, there is no allegation of engagement of any fraudulent or unfair means by the candidates.

¶154

Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department for the respondents, relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed has reiterated the stand of the State which has been discussed already above.

¶155

The ground taken by the State as reflected in para No. 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition is that the entire selection process in respect of recruitment of 104 nos. of AFPF Constables suffers from serious anomalies and is not transparent, unfair and it is in violation of various rules pertaining to Reservation and also contrary to various judgments and orders of the

¶156

Page No.# 15/18

¶157

Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶158

However, apart from such general averment made in the affidavit, based on the aforesaid communication of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, there is no other material which has been brought to the notice of the Court which would warrant interference by this Court.

¶159

As regards the contention and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition about the non-adherence to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 as well as R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1995 SCC 1371, it may be noted that if the authorities make readjustment of the Select List in the manner as stated above, the requirement of law relating to reservation can be taken care of.

¶160

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners on the other hand, has submitted on the strength of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Of India & Ors. Vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 285 that the authority ought not to take the extreme decision of cancelling the entire selection only on the ground of certain irregularities unless such irregularity vitiates the entire process.

¶161

Similarly, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder Pal & Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 644 in which it was held that where it is possible to separate the tainted cases from the non-tainted cases for which all endeavours should be made by the authorities as well as by the Court before resorting to the extreme step of cancelling the entire selection process. It has been submitted that i f it is so possible to separate, there is no need to interfere with the entire process.

¶162

In the present case, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that, first of all, there is no allegation of any corrupt practice or unfair means adopted by the petitioners and the aforesaid irregularities which have been pointed out in the Note made by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on the basis of which the State Government took the decision to cancel the Select List can be rectified without interfering with the selection on merit of the candidates.

¶163

This Court finds force in the submission advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. As mentioned above, the authorities have not pointed or made any allegation of any wrong doing or unfair practice or fraudulent activity committed by any of the candidates

¶164

Page No.# 16/18

¶165

and as such, it cannot be said that the selection process was vitiated by malpractice.

¶166

As regards the irregularity in the over representation and under representation of the districts as mentioned above, that itself is not indicative of wrong doing.

¶167

This Court is also of the opinion that mere over representation or under representation though may be suggestive of irregularity or malpractice, that itself is not sufficient to arrive at a definitive conclusion that malpractice had occurred.

¶168

Therefore, in absence of any concrete or credible materials to show commission of any malpractice or fraudulent activities, the said ground cannot be a foundation for invalidating the select list.

¶169

There could be various reasons for non-representation of the some of the districts or over representation by some of the districts including non-application by the eligible candidates from those areas etc.

¶170

As regards the non-conformity of ratio of candidates called for interview, though it can be said to be an irregularity, but the question is whether such irregularity itself will be sufficient to vitiate the selection process.

¶171

It may be mentioned that adhering to certain ratio for calling of candidates for interview is to ensure equitable opportunities to the candidate for assessment and so that deserving candidates are not unduly deprived of. In the present case, it has been noted that the variation in the ratio is not substantial to be considered unreasonable. Hence, merely because the ratio has not strictly adhered, that cannot be a ground for setting aside the recruitment process.

¶172

Further, though this Court has also noted that the ratio had not been consistently followed by the Selection Committee, in absence of any allegation of any corrupt practice or fraudulent activity, this Court is of the view that mere non-adherence to specific ration ought not to be a ground to interfere with the entire selection process.

¶173

As regards the allegation of including one non meritorious candidate namely, Doli Kalita, this Court is of the opinion that her name can certainly be struck off and the more meritorious candidate can be included and such one off illegality cannot said to have vitiated the entire selection process.

¶174

The illegal recommendation of Doli Kalita is an instance where the authorities can themselves rectify by cancelling her selection, which will not have any bearing on the merit

¶175

Page No.# 17/18

¶176

of the other remaining candidates.

¶177

As regards the allegation of not including meritorious reserved candidates under the unreserved list, this Court is of the view that as also submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that this irregularity can be rectified by the Selection Committee or by the State Government on the basis of the inter se merit of the candidates. In that event, by placing the meritorious candidates belonging to the reserved category under the unreserved category, such candidates under the General category who are recommended have to give way in favour of those more meritorious reserved candidates so that those slots occupied by those meritorious reserved candidates in their respective reserved list can be filled up in turn by those meritorious candidates in the respective lists.

¶178

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid irregularities which have been pointed out by the Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force on the basis of which the State government cancelled the Select List can be rectified by the authorities without disturbing the selection process and it can be rectified by re-fixing or reallocation of the candidates in accordance to their merit, category and status by giving due notice to those who are likely to be adversely affected.

¶179

It is a case where the chaff can be separated from the grains without much difficulty. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said that the entire selection process is vitiated which would warrant cancellation of the Select List. In other words, the aforesaid irregularities do not have any relevance to the assessment of the merits of the candidates.

¶180

For the reasons discussed above, this Court finds merit in these two petitions and accordingly are allowed.

¶181

The decision of the State Government to cancel the Select List as contained in the letter dated 18.07.2016 is set aside. In the result, the impugned notice dated 17.08.2016 is also set aside.

¶182

Since, it has been clarified by the State Government that the impugned advertisement dated 14.04.2017 does not pertain to the 104 number of posts of Constable for the Assam Forest Protection Force, the authorities may proceed with the said advertisement dated 14.04.2017.

¶183

Page No.# 18/18

¶184

However, the authorities will also proceed with the appointment of 104 posts of Constables under the All Assam Forest Protection Force in terms of the Selection list after making necessary rectification of the same as observed and directed above, which exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and issue necessary appointment orders to the deserving candidates in accordance with merit.

¶185

JUDGE

¶186

Comparing Assistant

Arabinda Rabha and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arabinda Rabha and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilim Konwar Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Parul Das Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Nazimul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Jatindra Kumar Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Arabinda Rabha and 13 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Dwijen Kalita Vs the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and 4 Ors.