Dr. Jatin Baruah vs State of Assam and Others

Amitava Roy, J.—The Petitioner, a candidate for the post of Principal in Biswanath College (hereafter referred to as the College), is aggrieved by the selection of the Respondent No. 5 for the said post and the consequential steps taken by the Official Respondents for his appointment thereto this Court while issuing notice of motion on 14.09.2004 had directed maintenance of status quo with regard to the process of such appointment. Consequently no appointment on the basis of the impugned selection has yet been made.

I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. SC Biswas, Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. S. Munir, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Government of Assam, Mr. D. Mazumdar, Advocate for the College Authorities and Mr. SK Muktar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.

The skeletal facts indispensable for disposing of the petition are that in response to an advertisement issued by the College for appointment to the post of Principal thereof, the Petitioner along with the Respondent No. 5 and seven others submitted their candidature. Eventually, however, seven candidates participated in the process. According to the Petitioner, apart from the fact that he was a candidate already selected by the State Selection Board for appointment to the post of Principal in any college in the State, he performed exceptionally well in the selection. In his view, considering lis commendable contribution to and achievements in the literary, social and cultural fields as well as his academic merit and performance in the interview, he by far was the best candidate most suitable for the post. However, from a reliable source he came to learn that the Selection Board had drawn up a panel of candidates in which the Respondent No. 5 was placed at SI. No. 1 with 56 marks followed by the Petitioner with 55 marks. The third candidate Dr. UK Sharma was shown to have scored 50 marks. The Petitioner has provided in the petition a comparative statement of marks awarded to him and the private Respondent. His grievance is that though in the interview on an average, he had scored 6.555, it was not rounded up to 7 whereas in the case of private Respondent his score of 9.888 in the interview was raised 10. His further grievance is that inspite of exemplary and extraordinary extra curricular activities to his credit, the Selection Board denied any mark to him whereas the private Respondent was awarded 2 marks on that count. It is the Petitioner''s contention that the Selection Board had failed to asses his suitability in the proper perspective by adopting a fair procedure resulting in serious prejudice to him.

The pleaded stand of the private Respondent is that the Selection Board was perfectly justified in upgrading his score of 9.88 to 10 and that as the Petitioner''s score of 6.55 was 45 below the next higher integer of 7, there was no justification whatsoever to raise his marks from 6.555 to 7. According to him, in any case, even if his marks in the interview are not raised to the next higher integer there is a difference of .33 marks in the total tally, as the Petitioner had scored 55.55 and the Respondent No. 555.88. The decision of the Selection Board to allot two marks to him for extracurricular activities while denying any mark to the Petitioner was also claimed to be justified. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Official Respondents.

The learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the decision of the Selection Board in not awarding 7 marks to the Petitioner having scored 6.555 while extending the benefit of rounding up the fraction in favour of the Respondent No. 5 is grossly arbitrary and unfair. According to him, a uniform approach ought to have been adopted by the Selection Board. Referring to the sworn statements in the petition with regard to the extra curricular activities of the Petitioner and the documents in support thereof annexed to the writ petition, Mr. Dutta, urged that the denial of any mark to the Petitioner under that head is not only intriguing but also exhibits institutional bias as the Respondent No. 5 is a serving lecturer of the same college. He maintained that the selection process has been vitiated by unfairness and non-transparency in action warranting interference of this Court.

Mr. Mazumdar in reply has submitted that the Selection Board in preparing the panel of the selected candidates had fairly assessed their candidature and the selection having been done on the basis of relevant considerations, this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review would not interfere with its recommendations. He has produced the original records pertaining to the selection in support of his contentions.

Mr. Muktar while endorsing the stand of the College has persuasively contended that the private Respondent having scored 9.88 on an average in the interview, the Selection Board was justified in enhancing it to 10 and therefore, the Petitioner who had scored only 6.555 and thus 45 away from the next higher number of 7 cannot expect to be treated at par. The learned Counsel argued that there being a difference of 33 marks in the total tally of the two candidates there is no room for the Petitioner to contend that the selection was unfair. According to Mr. Muktar, the award of marks for extraordinary cunicular activities being based on an assessment by the members of the Selection Board, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not sit in appeal on their judgment.

I have carefully weighed the rival contentions of the parties. The wrangle is focused on two discernible aspects of the selection process. First whether the Petitioner is entitled to have his marks in the interview upgraded to the next higher number of 7 and second whether the denial of any mark to the Petitioner under the head extracurricular activities is unsustainable in law in the face of available materials in support thereof. In my view, the answer lies in the records pertaining to selection.

The comparative table disclosing the marks earned by the candidates on average in the interview presents the following feature.

In the comparative table reflecting the total marks scored under different heads of assessment, in the column "Interview remarks" the candidates have been shown to have finally scored as follows.

It would be apparent from the above that the Selection Board rounded up the fraction in respect of the Respondent No. 5, Dr. M Sharma, Dr. S. Hazarika and Dr. UK Sharma to the next higher number. But the Petitioner though had scored 6.55 was denied the same.

It, therefore, appears that while the Selection Board had decided that the fraction above .5 could be raised to 1 for others, for reasons undisclosed, the same approach was not adopted for the Petitioner. Even if the fundamental principle of arithmetic in this regard is applied any fraction above .5 needs to be rounded up to 1.

Going by the approach of the Selection Board as above and in absence of any reason for a departure in respect of the Petitioner, I am inclined to conclude that the Board seems to have accepted a different yardstick in awarding interview marks to the Petitioner to his prejudice. In my view, the Petitioner was also entitled to have his score of 6.555 enhanced to 7.

With regard to the Petitioner''s grievance relating to denial of marks against his extracurricular activities, it would be appropriate to have in juxtaposition a glimpse of such activities of the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 as provided in their bio-data submitted with the College Authorities for the purpose of selection.

Dr Jatin Baruah

Extra Curricular Activities

NCC in College life (Participated in the Ganatantra Divas Parade in 1974 at New Delhi)

Acting in stage (Best Supporting actor of Varsity Week of GU in the year 1975-76.

Socio-Cultural Activities:

i. Secretary, Bongaigaon Sakha Sahitya Sabha (1998-2003).

ii. Advisor, Bongaigaon Kabi Chakra (Recognized by Asom Kabi Sanmilan)

iii. Advisor, Jogendra Sarkar Soarani Sanskritik Sangha, Bangaigaon.

iv. Secretary, Bongaigaon Bagheswaripara Development Committee (2002-2003).

v. First Vice-President of Bongaigaon District Journalist Association.

vi. Ex. Asstt. Secretary and Ex. Vice President Bongaigaon Press Club.

vii. Ex. Secy. and Present Advisor, Tezpur Sahitya Kala Parishad.

viii. Advisor, Milanpur Kabi Chakra, Tezpur (Recognised by Asom Kabi Sanmilan).

ix. Secretary, Akhil Bharatiya Sahitya Parishad, Bongaigaon Branch.

x. Vice President, Bharatiya Dalit Sahitya Academy, Bongaigaon District Committee.

xi. Advisor, Chilarai Academy, Assam (literary and Socio-Cultural Organisation)

xii. Chief Secretary, Asom Kabi Sanmilan (H.Q. Nagaon, Assam).

State or National or International felicitation:

i. Obtained Sahitya Academy''s tour-fellowship from New Delhi/Calcutta as an Assamese Author of the year 1997 (Among the two)

ii. ''Kabyajogi'' title from Asom Kabi Sanmilan in 2001.

iii. Felicitation and appreciation by National poets conference, 2002, by Bharatiya Bhasa Parisad, Kolkata, in collaboration with Songs and Drama Division, Govt, of Assam.

iv. Dr. Ambedkar National fellowship Award, 2003 from Bharatiya Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 233 Tagore Park, Model Town, Delhi-110009.

Apart from this the Petitioner had furnished a long list of his other creative activities in the cultural and literary fields.

Dr. Nityananda Gogoi

Other relevant experience/information, if any

(a) Member of the Indian History Congress.

(b) Life member of the North-East Indian History Association (NEIHA).

(c) Life Member of the Eastem Tai Literary Association.

(d) Executive member of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Committee, Assam.

(e) Member of History (Textbook) Cell for the Production of Textbook, Gauhati University from 1994-1997.

(f) Member, Committee of Courses and Studies in History, Gauhati University from 27.09.2001.

(g) Resource Person for the subject Teachers of H.S. Schools in 1998.

(h) Participated/Dissertated research papers in several State, Regional and National level Seminars.

The comparative table showing the allocation of marks under different heads discloses that none of the candidates except Dr. L. Ghatowar had initially been awarded any mark for the extracurricular activities. To be precise, in the aforesaid column, a cross mark with figure 2 overwritten appears against the name of the Respondent No. 5 and it is easily discernible therefrom that to begin with no mark was awarded by the Selection Board also to the Respondent No. 5 against his extracurricular activities. However, subsequently two marks were awarded to him on that count. Resultantly, the Petitioner with a cross mark against his name in the column-extracurricular activities and 6 marks for the interview, scored 55 marks and the Respondent No. 5 with 2 marks for extracurricular activities and 10 marks for the interview, scored 56 and thereby assumed the first position in the panel.

Though it is primarily within the exclusive domain of the Selection Board to award marks based on the assessment made by the materials available on record, it is irrefutably essential that any evaluation even based on subjective satisfaction, has to be guided by some objectivity. The selection records do not disclose any guideline for the purpose of allotment of marks under different heads. No reason has also been recorded for denying the Petitioner the benefit of upgradation of his marks in the interview to the next higher number though done in respect of other similarly situated candidates. No explanation for awarding two marks to the Respondent No. 5 after initially deciding to deny him any for the extracurricular activities is also forthcoming. No yardstick is discernible in the records adopted to appreciate the extracurricular activities of the competing candidates for allotment of marks. Having regard to the particulars furnished by the Petitioner in support of his extracurricular activities compared to those of the Respondent No. 5, the Petitioner''s grievance on this count does not appear to be wholly misplaced.

The primacy of a Selection Board in the matter of comparative assessment of candidates to adjudge their suitability for selection cannot be doubted. However, there is no room for recognizing any absolute discretion in such a pursuit as well. The power conferred on the selection board is coupled with a solemn duty exercise whereof has to be within a perceptive system of control, lest it degenerates into arbitrariness. In absence of any prescribed guideline and reason in the selection records for the decision of the Selection Board on the above two counts, I am constrained to hold that awarding of marks for the interview and extracurricular activities vis-a-vis the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 does not inspire the confidence of this Court.

It has been held in a catena of decisions that a Selection Board/Committee must observe procedural fairness and its decision must be reasonable and non-arbitrary and should not be influenced by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration. An uniform approach is a necessary concomitant of fairness in action in such matters. Although some leeway or flexibility on the basis of subjective assessment is permissible within allowable limits, the same nevertheless has to be steered by objective, realistic and rational consideration of the relevant materials on record. If a decision is found per se to be incongruent with the pertinent materials supposed to conduct the subjective process and the consequential deductions, the same cannot be countenanced. The decision making process then suffers from an inherent legal defect liable to be corrected in exercise of power of judicial review.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, having regard to the above revalations, the inescapable conclusion is that the Selection Board had failed to adhere to the fundamental edicts of fairness and transpiring in the selection. The Government Body of the College, as the record reveals, accepted the recommendations forwarded without addressing itself to the above aspects of the matter and transmitted the proposal for Appointing the Respondent No. 5 to the appropriate authority of the Government for approval.

In view of the above facts, the recommendations of the Selection Board and the steps taken on that basis cannot be upheld. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned recommendations of the Selection Committee are set aside. The College authorities would hereafter arrange for a fresh selection confining to the candidates participating in the earlier selection and thereafter take appropriate steps in connection therewith in accordance with law. As the post of Principal of the College is lying vacant, needless to say, the related exercise should be undertaken as expeditiously as possible.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.