Md. Abdul Ohab vs State Of Assam

1.Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. advocate appearing for the

respondent Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department Mr. R. Borpujari appears for the respondent No.2.

However the counsel for the respondent Nos.10, 11 and 12 are not present in Court.

The matter pertains to appointment of Chainman in the amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, in pursuant to the

advertisement dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure-22) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Amingaon. The petitioner offered his candidature and

participated in the selection exercise, but was unsuccessful. Therefore he challenges the appointment order dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure-26),

whereby, Hriday Das and Grimbason Sangma (respondent Nos.11 and 12) have been appointed as Chainman in the Nagarbera Revenue Circle and

Chamaria Revenue Circle, respectively.

3.1 The learned counsel Mr. M.A. Sheikh submits that the petitioner was temporarily engaged as a Chainman on 12.11.1993 from 01.10.1992 to

31.05.1993 and thereafter also, he was similarly engaged from time to time. Emphasizing on the experience gained by the petitioner, Mr. Sheikh

argues that the petitioner ought to have been selected for the post where the petitioner has acquired the necessary job skill.

3.2 The counsel then refers to the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class-III and Class-IV Posts) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to

as the “Recruitment Rulesâ€) to contend that constitution of the selection committee is prescribed for appointment to the Grade-IV posts in the

DC’s establishment and he argues that here the exercise was undertaken by an invalid committee.

On the other hand, Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt. advocate refers to the counter affidavit filed on 07.05.2013 by the Deputy

Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, to project that selection was made on merit through a transparent process and no infirmity could be identified by

the petitioner to interfere with the recruitment exercise.

The Government advocate further submits that the selection committee was in conformity with Rule 5(1)(b) of the Recruitment Rules was

constituted on 19.03.2010 by the Commissioner of Lower Assam Division and accordingly Mr. Nath questions the bonafide of the challenge made by

the unsuccessful candidate.

The petitioner as is apparent, has some job experience of Chainman, but it is not his case that the candidates who were selected, are undeserving of

appointment. In fact the limited challenge of the unsuccessful candidate is whether the selection committee was constituted, in accordance with the

Recruitment Rules.

It can be seen from the counter affidavit that the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division had nominated the SDO(C), Rangia; the Finance and

Accounts Officer in the DC’s Establishment and the Asstt. Director of the District Employment Exchange, Guwahati to function as members of

the selection committee and nomination of these 3 officers, is found to be consistent with the requirement of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 5(1)(b) of the

Recruitment Rules. Furthermore the senior most Addl. D.C. acted as the Chairman and the SDO(S), Kamrup, Amingaon functioned as the Member-

Secretary of the selection committee. Therefore the composition of the selection committee is found to be conforming to the requirement of Rule 5(1)

(b) of the Recruitment Rules.

In so far as the expectation of the petitioner, it is seen that the candidates were assessed on the basis of their ducational qualification, general

knowledge and personality and the merit of the candidate was the sole basis for the ecommendation made by the selection committee for appointment

of the private respondents.

At this juncture it will be relevant to mention that the petitioner has not alleged any malicious selection or even malpractice, in the recruitment

exercise undertaken by the appointing authority. As noted earlier, the committee which recommended the appointment was composed of those very

officers, envisaged under Rule 5(1)(b) of the Recruitment Rules.

In the above circumstances, I am convinced that the Chainmen were appointed through a bonafide exercise and it is not an appropriate case for

intervention by the High Court. Accordingly the matter is found devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No cost.