Amiya Singha vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] The petitioner has challenged a selection process and consequential non-selection of the petitioner to the post of Plaster Technician.

[2] Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner holds a qualification of Madhyamik Passed from a recognized institute. He also claims to be working in the private hospitals as Plaster Technician since the year 1999. The respondents advertised various posts in the Health Department under a notification dated 27th May 2016, one of them being the post of Plaster Technician. 14 vacancies on the said posts were notified out of which 4 were reserved for ST candidates, 2 for SC and 8 for UR category candidates. The qualifications as required prescribed Madhyamik or its equivalent examination passed from a recognized board as an essential qualification. Knowledge of work in respective line was stated to be a desirable qualification. The petitioner possessed the essential qualifications as well as the work experience. He, therefore, applied to the respondents for appointment to the said post along with necessary experience certificates. An interview Board of 5 members was constituted who called all the eligible candidates for the interview. At the end of such exercise, the interview board made recommendations for appointments which did not include the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the said selection process and sought directions for his appointment.

[3] The main ground urged by the petitioner is that he had a vast experience in the relevant field which was totally ignored by the respondents. The petitioner would point out that many of the selected candidates did not have any experience at all despite which they were preferred over the petitioner. Case of the respondents is that the interview board conducted the interviews in line with the guidelines issued by the Government. The petitioner did not secure sufficient marks and was, therefore, not selected. The respondents would point out that the last selected unreserved category candidate was awarded 70 marks whereas the petitioner had secured only 58 marks. They would also point out that as per the Government guidelines part of the exercise of awarding marks was non-discriminatory.

[4] In such a background appearing for the petitioner learned counsel, Ms. Paromita Dhar, submitted that the petitioner had a vast experience of working in the same field since the year 1999. He had produced necessary documents in support of the work experience. His experience was totally ignored by the interview committee. She drew my attention to the guidelines issued by the Government of Tripura which were followed by the Interview Board which gave no weightage to the experience of a candidate though in the advertisement itself it was specified that a candidate with experience in the relevant field would be preferred. She also submitted that the interviews lasted barely a minute or two per candidate which would imply that the interviews were not properly conducted since in such a short time no meaningful discussion can take place.

[5] Learned Additional Government Advocate, Mr. Dipankar Sharma, opposed the petition contending that the petitioner had participated in the interview without any objections. He cannot challenge the selection process once he finds that he has not been selected. The interview board had allotted marks as per the guidelines of the Government. The petitioner did not secure sufficient marks so as to qualify for appointment. Preference can be given on the basis of experience only if two candidates are of same merit.

[6] Learned counsel, Mr. Raju Datta, appearing for the private respondents who were selected and appointed for the said post also opposed the petition contending that the interview board had carried out the entire selection process in a transparent manner. Question of giving preference would arise provided two candidates are found to be of equal merit. In this context he relied on following decisions :

(i) State of U.P. and Another Vs. Om Prakash and Ors. reported in(2006) 6 SCC 474.

and

(ii) Elanjchelliyan and another Vs. District and Sessions Judge and Ors., reported in2008 SCC Online Cal.873.

[7] The official respondents have filed two affidavits broadly pointing out that the selection board had followed the Government guidelines for selection to the post in question. The petitioner did not secure sufficient marks to warrant appointment. The guidelines in question dated 12th January, 2015 provided that in case of Group - C posts 40 marks would be allotted for educational qualifications. The methodology for awarding the marks has also been prescribed. 30 marks would be awarded for General Knowledge(GK) which would be further broken up into 4 sub-categories such as (a) knowledge on subject to be evaluated (7 marks), (b) intelligence (8 marks), (c) aptitude and interest in the field (7 marks) and (d) sense of social commitment (8 marks).10 marks would be awarded for co-curricular activities. Thus the process of selection to be conducted by the interview board was fairly regulated. There is no grievance that the interview board did not apply these guidelines. In fact, the petitioner has no quarrel with the marks allotted to him and to the rival candidates and who were selected and appointed and joined as private respondents for educational qualifications. In absence of any allegations of mala fides against the members of the interview board allocation of marks for the rest of discretionary heads cannot be further examined. The petitioner's grievance that the interviews lasted for a very short time also must be seen in light of no previous grievance having been raised by the petitioner on this ground. Significantly, the petitioner had taken a written objection on 23rd September, 2016 i.e. shortly after the conduct of oral interviews about his working experience not being taken into account. In such communication the petitioner never raised an issue of the oral interview being too short. This ground thus is a clear afterthought which is raised for the first time in the writ petition.

[8] Coming to the question of the effect of work experience, firstly as noted, 7 marks had to be allotted by the interview board for knowledge on a subject which could as well take within its sweep the work experience. It can, therefore, not be argued that the work experience of a candidate was totally ignored or rendered irrelevant. Secondly, when the advertisement provided that the experience would be preferred, it cannot be equated with an essential requirement or even an overwhelming factor to override all other considerations. What weightage should be given to experience must be left to the interview boards and the expert bodies in the field. Lastly, as pointed out by the respondents, the last selected candidate in the UR category had secured 70 marks as against 58 marks secured by the petitioner.

For all such reasons, I do not find any illegality in the selection process so far as the petitioner is concerned. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.