Allowed

Padma Prasad Sarma v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 May 2019WP(C)/5561/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition regarding a non-declared selection result for Junior Assistant posts. Finding anomalies in mark evaluations and recording errors, the Court directed a fresh re-examination from the descriptive stage, ordered the petitioner's reinstatement and participation with age relaxation, and made the rule absolute.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to conduct a fresh examination from the descriptive stage and giving the petitioner an opportunity to participate with age relaxation.

Padma Prasad Sarma Vs the State of Assam and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010021282015

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5561/2015

¶5

1:PADMA PRASAD SARMA

¶6

S/O- SRI TIPESWAR SARMA, R/O- LATHABORI WARD NO. 4, P.O., P.S. and DIST.- MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECY., GOVT. OF ASSAM, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION B DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶10

2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM.

¶11

3:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER MOIRGAON DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.A CHAKRABORTY

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

Page No.# 2/7

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

06.05.2019

¶18

Heard Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

¶19

Issue Rule returnable forthwith. The matter has been heard with the consent of both sides.

¶20

By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the case projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner has approached this Court for the second time seeking reasons to be communicated as to why the result of the selection process for the post of Junior Assistant initiated vide advertisement dated 06.12.2012 by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon was not declared. It is projected that although the petitioner had participated in the selection process by appearing in the computer test on 24.01.2014 and viva-voce test on 08.02.2014, the result of selection process was not declared. Accordingly, the aggrieved petitioner had moved this Court by filing WP (C) 2868/2015. This Court vide order dated 20.05.2015 passed in WP (C) 2868/2015, disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondents, more fully the respondent No.2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon to declare the result of selection. It was further directed that if for any reason the result cannot be declared, the reasons therefore shall be communicated to the petitioner, further directing that the required exercise in terms of the order shall be carried out and completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within 30.06.2015 Thereafter the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon vide Memo No. MPE 45/2012/19 dated 25.06.2015, had informed the petitioner that the process of selection of candidates for the post of Junior Assistant in the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Morigaon from the examination of descriptive question papers onwards were cancelled and the examination of descriptive questions papers would be held afresh and computer skill test would be held subsequently. Aggrieved by the said communication dated 25.06.2015, wherein no information is given as to why the process for the descriptive question papers were cancelled, the petitioner has approached this Court again seeking quashing of the said communication dated 25.06.2015 and further directing the respondents to declare the result of the earlier interview process.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although in the communication dated 25.06.2015, it was mentioned that the candidates who had appeared in the examination earlier would be communicated regarding date and venue of descriptive examination in due time, but as per instructions received by him, the petitioner has not been called for the fresh selection process. It is further submitted that if the authorities have decided to hold the selection process afresh from the

¶22

Page No.# 3/7

¶23

examination of descriptive question papers onwards as disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner must be afforded an opportunity to participate in the said process. It is submitted that as per report dated 05.02.2015, in Table “A” thereof the authorities have disclosed the marks recorded in the merit list and descriptive examination etc. Accordingly, it is submitted that the examination process was cancelled only to accommodate some particular candidates and that the cancellation of the examination process was not in public interest.

¶24

The learned Govt. Advocate has submitted that as per stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2, the result of the selection process could not be declared in view of complaints received in respect of the selection process. He has submitted that an enquiry committee was constituted and the said committee has found several instances of discrepancy in the aggregate marks of the candidates and to avoid irregularity and to protect the merit, it was decided to cancel the process of examination of descriptive question paper, computer test and oral test and the authorities are decided to hold the examination of descriptive question papers, computer test and oral test afresh and in this regard the authorities have received approval for the cancellation of the examination process for initiating by the Commissioner, North Assam Division, Tezpur. He has further submitted that the fresh selection process was stalled in view of the order dated 16.09.2015 passed by this Court in this present writ petition.

¶25

In the light of the stand taken by the parties, this Court has perused the materials available on record.

¶26

The verification report dated 05.02.2015 which is annexed as annexure-A to the affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondent No.2, which are found to be reflected in the said report dated 05.02.2015. It would be relevant to reproduce the said report hereinbelow:-

¶27

Report

¶28

On 07.10.2014, 18.10.2014, 27.11.2014 and 27.01.2015 we the members of the verification committee sat in the office chamber of Treasury Officer for verification of the documents which were kept in Morigaon Treasury pertaining to the test held for selection for Jr Assistants. There we found two locked trunks and two large packets. As the keys were not available, the locks of the trunks had to be broken.

¶29

On verification of the documents, inside the trunks 477 Nos of used OMR sheets, unused test booklets, attendance sheets were found. Inside the two packets, hard copies of computer test and 471 Nos of evaluated descriptive answer sheets were found. But inside the trunks no statements of evaluated marks of OMRs were found. There were also no statements of evaluated marks regarding the descriptive answer scripts.

¶30

In view of non-availability of evaluation statement of OMRs and descriptive examination in record, the then Addl Deputy Commissioner Morigaon, and Chairman of Selection Committee Shri Suresh Chandra Sarma was requested to attend in DC’s office vide W.T. No. MPE-45/2012/87 dated 22.11.2014. Accordingly on 27.11.2014, Shri S. C. Sarma attended this office and inspected the concerned records including the trunks but could not find

¶31

Page No.# 4/7

¶32

the required evaluation statements. Latter on he sent (1) Photocopy of memorandum of OMR evaluation done in APSC, (2) Photocopy of list of answer keys signed by Shri S.C. Sarma. (3) Photocopy of evaluation sheet of descriptive examination signed by some R.C. Deka on 15.06.2013.

¶33

To ascertain the correctness of the entries made in merit list in respect of OMRs, APSC was also requested to provide the evaluation sheet of marks vide letter No. MPE.45/2012/88/31094 dtd. 08.12.2014 as evaluation was done in APSC and accordingly APSC provided a photocopy of evaluation mark sheet signed by Shri Biman Das, Asstt. Programmer, of APSC.

¶34

Verification:-

¶35

On verification and comparison of marks of OMRs in merit list with the marks sheet provided by APSC, the entries made in the merit list and selection list are found to be correct.

¶36

Regarding the marks of descriptive examination, the list of marks provided by Shri S. C. Sarma is compared with the entries made in the merit list and selection list. The evaluated answer scripts were also verified and on verification of the evaluated answer scripts the committee observed some anomalies regarding entries of marks in the merit list against Roll Nos which are as follows:

¶37

Table-A

¶38

Sl No.	Roll No	Marks recorded merit list	Marks recorded evaluation sheet descriptive examination	Marks recorded answer sheets	Remarks
1	82	21	21	11	10 marks hd d
					enance an this Roll No is found in the final selection list
2	550	20	20	14	6 marks enhanced and this Roll No is found in the final selection list

¶39

Table-B

¶40

Sl No	Roll No	Marks recorded	Marks recorded	Marks recorded	Remarks
		merit list	in evaluation sheet of descriptive examination	in answer sheets
1	89	13	13	15	2 marks decreased

¶41

Page No.# 5/7

¶42

2	94	13	12	12	1 marks enhanced
3	474	20	20	15	5 marks enhanced

¶43

It is also observed that in some cases the marks given by the examiner for the answers in answers scripts were not correctly added in total and the discrepancies are as follows

¶44

Table-C

¶45

Sl No	Roll No	Marks recorded	Marks recorded	Marks	recorded	Marks ought to
		in merit list	in evaluation	on	answer	be as per
			sheet of	scripts		marking on
			descriptive			answers
			examination
1	74	8	8	8		13
2	76	16	16	16		21
3	102	13	13	13		18
4	109	17	17	17		22
5	164	12	4	12		14
6	174	15	15	15		20
7	285	8	8	8		12
8	310	2	2	2		7
9	381	14	14	14		15
10	442	21	21	21		23

¶46

Page No.# 6/7

¶47

11	504	18	18	18	24
12	519	19	19	19	21
13	545	10	10	10	13
14	614	11	11	11	14

¶48

In view of the above verification committee observes the following

¶49

Anomalies in marks are found in case of Roll No. 82 and Roll No. 550 which are selected as candidate enhancing 10 and 6 marks respectively.

¶50

Marks of descriptive examination of some candidates as shown in the table A, B and C either increased or decreased or calculated wrongly. So the merit list prepared for oral interview and computer test with those marks may be considered as defective. For these anomalies some candidate might have been deprived of appearing in oral and computer test and some might have got undue advantage.

¶51

The committee considers that the preparation of merit list with anomalies in marks of descriptive examination and calling of candidates for oral interview and computer test on that merit list and preparation of Final Selection List is defective. Hence the committee opines that the merit list and selection list as prepared by the then selection committee may not be accepted.

¶52

In the light of the above quoted report dated 05.02.2015, it appears to this Court that the fresh re-examination process, as initiated, appears to be justified. Accordingly, in terms of the communication made to the petitioner vide MPE.45/2012/19 dated 25.06.2013 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents to continue with the process of fresh examination for the post of Junior Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon from the examination of descriptive question papers onwards. However, the respondent No.2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner and all others who had appeared in the first round of selection process initiated in connection with the advertisement No. MPE.45/2012/4 dated 06.12.2012. It is further provided that in the event the petitioner and any other examinee is found to have crossed the upper age as contained in the advertisement dated 06.12.2012, the respondents shall be obliged to relax age of the petitioner or any other examinee as the petitioner is not at fault for which the fresh examination has been called for.

¶53

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon and upon receipt of the same, the said authorities shall act in accordance with law and in terms of

¶54

Page No.# 7/7

¶55

order as indicated above.

¶56

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations. The Rule is made absolute in terms of this order.

¶57

There shall be no order as to cost.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

Comparing Assistant

Padma Prasad Sarma v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padma Prasad Sarma v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanjal Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Rokibul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mustt. Lailima Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Panna Deb Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Arabinda Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Tapan Nath and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.