Jakir Miah vs District And Sessions Judge And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. Arijit Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 (members of the Interview Board). The State of Tripura is not a party inasmuch as the challenge is concerned with non-selection of the petitioners.

[2] Both the writ petitions are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the nature of their challenge and the relief prayed in the respective writ petitions are resembling and set up in an identical matrix of facts. In response to the advertisement No.Recruitment Cell/DJ/W/2015/(Main)/1314 dated 24.04.2015 issued by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), both the petitioners had applied for the post of Group D (Peon Grade) on the fixed pay basis. It had been clearly instructed in the said advertisement that the candidates will have to sit in the written examination for total marks 75. [Letter writing in Bengali- 25, Hand writing (English and Bengali)- 25), and General Knowledge and Current Affairs-25]. After the candidates secured the qualifying marks in the written examination, they will appear viva voce [allotted marks-25].

[3] There is no dispute that the petitioner of the writ petition being WP(C) 894 of 2018, namely Jakir Miah secured 61 marks out of 75 marks in the written examination and the petitioner in the WP(C) of 715 of 2018, namely Rajesh Debnath secured 68 out of 75 marks. Both of them indisputably were called for the interview. Both the petitioners got zero out of 25 in the interview. It is to be noted that the writ petitioner of WP(C) 894 of 2018 has degree of Post Graduation in Bengali and the petitioner in the WP(C) of 715 of 2018 is a Honours graduate in History.

[4] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that awarding the petitioners zero mark is not only illogical, but is absurd. Despite their participation in the process of the interview, the petitioners were not actually interviewed and assessed. As a result, they were given zero mark.

[5] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that later on the petitioners have gathered that because of their higher qualification, they were discarded from the same procedure. But the respondents by filing their reply have explained the phenomenon in the following manner:

That, as regards the statement s made in paragraphs 17 of the Petition, the answering Respondent no.1 most humbly begs to state that the contents therein relates to the Petitioner. However, there is no such written or recorded evidence or materials in the office in respect of what questions were asked to the Writ petitioner in the Viva Voce test and whether the petitioner has answered all or some of the questions correctly or not.

[6] Even the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5, the members of the Interview Board filed their separate reply and contended that the petitioners' claim that they ought to have given marks is based on no material. They have asserted that zero mark was awarded to those candidates who were found not 'suitable' for the post and mere appearance in the viva-voce test did not give rise to any right to the petitioner to get any marks of his choice. Not only the petitioners, but some other candidates were also given zero marks considering their suitability.

[7] Ms. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, has produced the record of viva-voce test and that has been perused by this court, but how marks were distributed is not available from the records of interview. It is not denied that the petitioners have participated in the said proceeding. It is, however, accepted that some marks have been allotted on the basis of the qualification. If that is so, it is really absurd how the petitioners can secure zero in the viva-voce test. Even the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 have not stated the method they have followed in the viva-voce. It is really strange that no method has been recorded anywhere in the records, even not in the sheet, where they have given marks. From one of the sheets, it appears that there were two aspects against which the marks are allotted and from another sheet used by one of the interviewers, it surfaces that there were three aspects. It appears that the interviewers have given marks without following any uniform procedure.

[8] Be that as it may, this court is of the view that the marks awarded to the petitioners in the interview are not only illogical but also unintelligible. Having observed thus, the respondent No.1 is directed to take fresh interview of the petitioners within a month from the day of receiving a copy of this order. If they are found suitable after aggregating the marks of the written examination and the viva-voce test, the petitioners shall be accommodated against the vacancy available at present and accordingly they would be appointed. If they can cross the mark secured by the last selectee, namely Kanchan Das, then only the question of appointing the petitioners would arise.

[9] It is needless to say that the petitioners are to be considered in the UR category and that is the reason why the last candidate in the UR category has been referred.

[10] It is made absolutely clear the petitioners will not get any benefit retrospectively. They would get all the benefits from the date of their appointment only, if they are selected in the process.

In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Interlocutory application, if any, pending stands disposed of.