AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sl.
No.",Roll No.,"Name
(General Category)",PE Test,"Viva-
voce",Total
,,,,,
1.,21194,Manowar Hussain (Petitioner No.1),27.5,28.0,55.5
,,,,,
2.,19306,Ejaj Ahmed (Petitioner No.2),26.0,10.0,36.0
,,,,,
3.,20167,Kartik Deka (Petitioner No.3),28.5,25.0,53.5
,,,,,
by the respondents in the Physical Efficiency Test even on a random scrutiny of the annexed select list indicate that most candidates who succeeded,",,,,,
had better marks in the Physical Efficiency Test. The Court cannot also overlook the aspect that the private respondents who are arrayed in the,,,,,
proceedings, belong to the ST, SC & OBC category and not all of them belong to the General Category within which, the petitioners are competing.",,,,,
The aggregate score of each of the selected candidates in their respective category, was the basis for their selection and no extraneous factor is",,,,,
brought to light by the petitioners. Hence it will not be proper for this Court to interfere with the selection which appears to have been made through a,,,,,
legitimate and objective process. In this context, the Court will be well served to remember the ratio in Sadananda Haloi vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh",,,,,
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619 where the Supreme Court had cautioned the Writ Court from making roving inquiry on the factual aspects of large scale,,,,,
selection in cases where the challengers fail to disclose the primary basis of their challenge.,,,,,
But one aspect of the petitioners’ specific case in my view will justify some scrutiny. The candidate Jainur Ali (respondent No.20) in the,,,,,
Physical Efficiency Test secured 29.5 but this was higher than all the three petitioners. With addition of 30 marks for the Viva-voce segment the,,,,,
aggregate score of this candidate becomes 59.5 which is again higher than the aggregate score of the three petitioners. Therefore the better,,,,,
performance of respondent No.20 vis-Ã -vis the petitioners is quite apparent. But most surprisingly, the candidate Jainur Ali is shown to be a SC",,,,,
Category candidate. This could also be a typographical error as was in the case of Deben Kutum but the materials are insufficient to arrive at a,,,,,
definite conclusion on his candidature. In such circumstances it will not be correct for this Court to say straight way 8that Jainur Ali did not merit,,,,,
selection or that the entire selection process is vitiated. However, it is clear enough that with the aggregate score of 59.5 respondent Jainur Ali is well",,,,,
below the cut off marks of 69 for the General Category and therefore, the SC categorization of Jainur Ali is required to be verified. If the respondent",,,,,
No.20 belongs to the General Category, necessary verification exercise and consequential action will have to be under-taken by the State Authorities",,,,,
and this must be done by the respondents. However, if any interference with the selection of Jainur Ali is to be made, the concerned appointee must",,,,,
be afforded due opportunity before he is visited with any penal action. It is ordered accordingly.,,,,,
With the above order, the case stands disposed of without any order on cost.",,,,,