AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
W.A. Shishak, J.—In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Notification dated 14th May, 1999 and another Notification dated 17th May, 1999 notifying the dates of interview for appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Advocate are sought to be quashed mainly on the ground that in the said Notifications only oral interview is sought to be taken and not a composite test including written test.
An advertisement was issued on 12th April, 1999 for two posts of Assistant Government Advocate-cum-Assistant Public Prosecutor, one for general category and the other for scheduled tribes category in the scale of pay of Rs. 2000/- Rs. 3,500/- P.M.(prerevised) The essential qualification mentioned in the said advertisement is Bachelor''s Degree in Law from a recognised University and three years experience at the Bar. Para 7 of the Advertisement requires several particulars of the candidates. In para 7, Column DC among other things it is mentioned "Incomplete application will not be entertained under any circumstances". Para 8 further states "The Candidates will have to appear for interview at their cost on the date, time and place to be notified later on. Date of on interview and screening place/test will be intimated in due course."
The number of posts has since been increased to 4(four). However, Mr. Shyamkishore, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate states at the Bar that one post is going to be regularised in favour of one adhoc appointee, hence there are now three posts of Assistant Government Advocate-cum-Assistant Public Prosecutor.
As stated above the main contention of the writ Petitioner is that for the purpose of selection of candidates for appointment to the posts in question a composite test (written test as well as oral test/interview) is necessary. Mr. N. Ibotombi Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the fact that written test is also necessary is in fact clearly stated or reflected in the advertisement issued on 12th April, 1999. This statement has been made with particular reference to para 8 of the said advertisement. Mr. Ibotombi submits that screening test means test in writing. According to him test means written test. With reference to Subhash Chandra Verma and others, etc. Vs. State of Bihar and others, etc., Mr. Ibotombi submits that in that case the advertisement stated screening test would be held and this was in respect of Medical Officer''s case and the screening test was a written test. It is also submitted that the Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Advocate knowing the contents of the advertisement. It is, therefore, submitted that the Government is bound by the conditions of the advertisement in which it was clearly stated that screening test would be held in due course. Mr. Ibotombi further submits that in fact invariably for the purpose of selection of candidates test is always held. In Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, it was held that oral test/oral interview was taken only as an additional or supplementary test to supplement the written test. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no reason why written test and oral test should not be taken in the present case.
In 1990 2 SLR 433 it was also held that the scheme intended for recruitment should be on the basis of an examination comprising of written test and interview. This case was in respect of the post of Insurance Inspector/Manager Grade-II. Mr. Ibotombi further submits that in 1992 3 SLR 136 it was held that it is the appraisal of the current performance by written test and interview which alone is the real part for proper appraisal of the current performance of the candidate for the purpose of assessing his merit for promotion through the Merit Channel. It is, therefore, submitted mat even in case of promotion written test was deemed necessary, defying on Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, Mr. Ibotombi further submits that written examination/written test is accepted as more objective in its assessment.
In view of the urgency expressed at the Bar the matter has been heard at motion stage. On 24.5.99 Mr. L. Shyamkishore, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate was asked to produce copies of advertisements issued in the part in the matter of selection made for appointment as Assistant Govt. Advocate-cum-Assistant Public Prosecutor. He has done so. On 28.5.99 a prayer was made at the Bar that the High Court Bar Association would like to participate in the proceedings as intervener, inasmuch as the matter concerns the interest of the members of the Bar in general. Prayer was allowed. I have heard Mr. H.N.K. Singh, Sr. Advocate and also Mr. Binoy Kumar, Secretary of the High Court Bar. The main submission made on behalf of me High Court Bar Association is whether or not written test was held in the past, now mat there are several candidates who are desirous of competing for the posts in question, it is only reasonable mat in order to select the best, a composite test must be held. The submission of Mr. H.N.K. Singh and Mr. Binoy Kumar is mat even in respect of selection for appointment as Addl. Govt. Advocate for the High Court, written test was taken though minimum 10 years experience at the Bar was prescribed in the advertisement It is further submitted that even in respect of appointment to the post of Grade-I Manipur Judicial Service written test is invariably taken. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no reasonable ground to make an exception to the present posts of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Advocate.
Mr. L. Shyamkishore Singh learned Sr. Govt. Advocate submits that no written test whatsoever was ever taken in respect of selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Advocate. According to him oral test was the only test taken in such case. In this regard he has produced few copies of advertisements issued in respect of such post in the past. Mr. Shyam Kishore also refers me to 1981 4 SCC 159 wherein it was held that in respect of selection from amongst experienced persons written test might amount to a cruelty. This case was in respect of selection for the purpose of appointment as Munsi. According to Mr. Shyam Kishore written test has been emphasised mostly in respect of selection of candidates for admission into various institution and not for the purpose of selection for appointment to the posts like the ones that are in question. The main submission of Mr. Shyam Kishore is mat since selection in the present case would be made from persons who have had three years experience in the Bar, to conduct written test would among to cruelty.
It is further submitted by Mr. Shyam Kishore that this Court should not sit in judgment as regards the methods of selection adopted by the State Government.
In Civil Rule 803/1997, the Petitioner challenged the validity of written test being conducted for the purpose of selection and appointment as Additional Govt. Advocates for the High Court on the ground that such method would amount to cruelty, inasmuch as the minimum period of practice in the Bar prescribed in the advertisement was ten years and in fact most of the candidates had already practised for many years. However, by order dated 25-11-97 this Court held that since the Petitioner had himself applied for the post of Additional Govt. Advocate knowing full well that the Advertisement clearly stated that written test would be taken, it was not open to the Petitioner to question the validity of such test. In that case the court was of the view that the Public Service Commission had the competence to adopt its own procedure to conduct examination in an appropriate manner and that what kind of test is to be taken as regards a particular post or cadre is entirely within the domain of the Commission. In fact this was the view of the State Government and Mr. Shyam Kishore who appeared in the\\aforesaid case had also made a submission that it is for the Commission to select the best and finest by following rational method in holding examinations. Among other things in para 10 of the said judgment it was said "It is Mr. Shyamkishore''s submission that no candidate can take any valid grievance against written test taken for the purpose of making the best selection, inasmuch as written test has been accepted as the best method to select the best and the finest in the country in the matter of appointment in services." As stated above in that case Additional Government Advocate were to be selected from amongst the members of the Bar who had put in not less than 10 years practice. In the case at hand the experience of practice is just 3 years. I do not think it will be reasonable to dispense with written test simply because candidates have put in 3 years experience. At the same time with the passage of time we have so many young lawyers at the Bar. It is in the interest of Government service that there must be open competition by holding a written test in order to enable the State Government to select the best and finest from amongst the candidates.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned notices dated 14th May, 1999 and dated 17th May, 1999 vide Annexure-A/3 and A/5 are set aside. The State Government is directed to notify a fresh date for conducting written test as well as oral test. This shall be done without further delay as some time has already been taken because of the litigation in the court. I would there fore direct the State Government to notify fresh dates for conducting necessary test not later than 1(one) month from the date of receipt of this order.
Petition is disposed of.