Manisha Rudra Paul vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

[1] Petitioner has challenged the selection process for the post of Physiotherapist for which she had applied but was not selected.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The Government of Tripura had issued a notification inviting eligible candidates to apply for several Government posts including that of Physiotherapist in the scale of pay of Rs.5,700-24,000/- in Pay Band - II with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-. In all 18 such posts were advertised, 10 were for Unreserved(UR) category, 5 for Scheduled Tribe(ST) and 3 for Scheduled Caste(SC) category candidates.

[3] The petitioner held the necessary educational and other qualifications. She, therefore, applied in response to the said advertisement. Along with other eligible candidates she was invited for walk-in interview which were conducted in the month of September, 2016. Upon completion of the selection process, a select list was prepared and published, a copy which is produced at Annexure - 3. This did not contain the name of the petitioner. She has, therefore, filed this petition.

[4] In the petition and before me learned counsel for the petitioner has taken following grounds of challenge :

(a) The interview Board did not include an expert.

(b) The questions put to the petitioner were totally irrelevant.

(c) Interview was conducted in a haphazard manner. No proper selection was made.

(d) As a result of such procedure, persons less meritorious than the petitioner were selected and appointed who are joined as private respondents in this petition.

(e) The petitioner had the experience of 4 years in the field which was not taken into consideration.

[5] The official respondents have appeared and filed their reply. It is pointed out that the interview Board consisted of Dr. Dilip Kr. Roy, Asstt. D. H. S as a Chariman, Smt. Shipra Das, Nursing Supdt. D.H.S., as a Member, Dr. Satyabrata Nath, Asstt. Professor, AGMC & GBP Hospital, as a Member. The Board also contained representatives of the SC and ST Welfare Departments. It is stated that the interviews were conducted by the Board and there was no illegality in the process.

[6] Some of the private respondents have appeared and filed reply and opposed the petition through their advocate Mr. Raju Datta.

[7] The composition of a selection Board is ordinarily left to the Government and its agencies. In the present case, when the interview Board included 2 doctors and a nursing specialist besides the representatives of the SC and ST Welfare Departments, I do not find anything intrinsically wrong with the constitution of the interview Board. The petitioner has also not joined the members of the Board for making direct allegations of irrelevant questions being put to her. The question of judging the petitioner's experience, also is primarily the task of the interview Board. Unless such experience is mandatory and made an essential qualification, what weightage such experience should carry, cannot normally be a subject matter of adjudication. The selection of a candidate would depend on range of factors including the experience required.

[8] However, one ground which really appeals to me is the manner in which the interviews must have been conducted. This emerges from a document produced by the official respondents along with the reply. This is an order dated 1st September, 2016 announcing the composition of the interview committees and the date and time when the interviews for different posts advertised by the Government would be conducted. Relevant portion of this document reads as under :

"2(two) board is constituted comprising of the following officers for conducting interview for selection of candidates for recruitment in different posts which will be held as per following schedule in the O/o the Deputy Drugs Controller, Pandit Nehru Complex, Gurkhabosti, Agartala, West Tripura.

...............................................................

Name of the post

Name of the Board Chairman & Member

Date and time of interview.

Physiotherapist

Dr. Dilip Kr. Roy, Asstt. DHS, Gr.-III

of THS..........Chairman.

Smt. Shipra Das, Nursing Superintendent, In-charge Nursing Cell(Nursing Service), O/o the DHS ......

Member.

Dr. Satyabrata Nath, Assistant Professor, AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala Member.

Representative from Welfare of SCs Department, Govt. of Tripura...............

Member.

Representative from Welfare of STs Department, Govt of Tripura .............

Member.

Token No.1 to 119

13th September, 2016 from 11:00 AM to 1:30 PM.

"

[9] As per this schedule, thus the interview Board would conduct interviews of 119 candidates, on 13th September 2016, for the post of Physiotherapist between 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Perusal of this document would show that the interview Board composition changed slightly from post to post, however Dr. Dilip Kr. Roy was the Chairman of several other interview Boards constituted for selection to other posts as well. Meetings of these interview Committees were also held on 13th, 14th and 15th September, 2016 during which time the interview Boards had conducted large number of similar interviews. For example, on 13th September 2016 itself between 2:00 to 4:30 p.m., this interview Committee with one substitution had listed 115 candidates for interview for the post of Ophthalmic Assistant. Similarly, on 14th September 2016, this Committee with one substitution was scheduled to interview 150 candidates for Record Technician between 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and another 156 candidates for the same post on 14th September, 2016 between 2:00 to 4:30 p.m. Thus, even after accounting for a few no-show candidates, the board would have interviewed large number of candidates in a short time of two or two and a half hours.

[10] What I am trying to derive at through this data is that the interviews were conducted in most hurried manner when in two and half hours the Board interviews of close to 119 candidates, accounting for time for previous candidate to go out, new candidate to come in the room and for the candidates to settle down, per candidate on an average the Board would have less than a minute to spend. In some cases, the Board had called for interview more than 150 candidates in two and half hours. This process went on session after session, each day there would be two sessions of interviews. One can easily imagine the quality of selection and process that such short time assigned to each candidate would permit. On several occasions, the Supreme Court has stressed on sufficient time being granted to a candidate to be interviewed for public employment. This issue will assume greater seriousness considering the fact that oral interview was the sole criterion of appointment. No written tests were conducted. The appointments were to be made solely on the basis of oral interviews.

[11] The petition, therefore, must succeed in part. However, the petitioner cannot claim appointment without proving that she herself was meritorious. By moulding the relief, therefore the equities shall have to be balanced. Only one petitioner has come forward raising the grievances about non-selection (besides a few candidates having filed separate petitions for similar grievances) Private respondents are working on regular basis since several years. Setting aside their appointments would, therefore, not be justified. By moulding the relief, therefore, the petition is disposed of with following directions :

(a) The case of the petitioner shall be considered against the existing vacancy and against first available vacancy if there is no vacancy at present, by granting age relaxation.

(b) If there is an existing vacancy, the petitioner shall be called for oral interview by a Board which may be constituted by the appointing authority. If the petitioner is found meritorious, she shall be offered appointment which shall be prospective.

(c) If there is no vacancy available, case of the petitioner shall be considered in first available vacancy which may arise. In such a case petitioner shall be considered along with other eligible candidates by granting her age relaxation and offered appointment, if selected.

[12] These directions shall be carried out within 4(four) months from today, if there is an existing vacancy or within 4(four) months of rising of the vacancy, if there is none at present.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.