Satyajit Debnath vs Union Of India And Ors

Originally two connected petitions were filed being WP(C) No.1313 of 2016 and WP(C) No.1314 of 2016 by two petitioners raising similar grievances. However, WP(C) No.1313 of 2016 came to be withdrawn on 29.06.2018 since the petitioner therein was not interested in pursuing the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the documents relied upon in the surviving WP(C) No.1314 of 2016 are in compilation of WP(C) No.1313 of 2016 and, therefore, I had called for the record of the disposed of case and perused the relevant documents from there.

The petitioner has challenged the selection process for the post of Operation Theatre Assistant (OT Assistant, for short). According to the petitioner, there were a large number of irregularities in conduct of the selection process during which the private respondents No.4 to 18 were selected and appointed. Petitioner has challenged their appointments and further prayed for a direction that he should be appointed to the said post.

Brief facts are as under:

The respondents State authorities had issued a notification dated 26.07.2015 notifying various posts under the Directorate of Health Services which included 15 (fifteen) posts of OT Assistant of which 3(three) were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 5(five) for Scheduled Tribe and 7(seven) were meant for unreserved category. The qualifications required were Madhyamik or its equivalent examination passed from a recognized Board. It was provided that knowledge of OT work in hospitals would be desirable. The petitioner applied for the post in question and was called for an interview. He appeared before the interview board on 22.12.2015. The official respondents appointed respondents No.4 to 18. The petitioner was not offered an appointment. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the said selection process.

According to the petitioner, he is better qualified and suited for the post in question than the said private respondents. He not only holds the qualification of Madhyamik but H.S. (+2). He had work experience with ILS Hospital, Agartala where he worked from 11.10.2012 onwards. He had also taken Clinical Training for OT work. Despite this, he was illegally kept out of contention. It is pointed out that as per the advertisement work in a hospital was a desirable qualification. Many of the selected candidates did not have any such experience.

Case of the petitioner also is that the Government of Tripura has issued guidelines for conduct of interviews for selection. These guidelines had not been followed by the respondents in the present case. The entire selection process is thus vitiated.

The official respondents have filed an affidavit dated 08.06.2017 in which stand taken is that the entire selection was done transparently. No mala fides are alleged against any of the members of the Board. Mere experience in the ILS Hospital would not automatically make the petitioner most suitable candidate. It is stated that the selection committee had examined all candidates, their documents and awarded marks to each candidate out of 100 as per the General Employment Guidelines of 2015. These particulars were submitted by the interview board to the competent authority who approved the list of selected candidates and thereafter issued the appointments. The respondents have also taken a stand that the petitioner who had appeared in the selection process, cannot challenge the validity thereof.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, I do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for interference. Before citing reasons for this conclusion, I must reject the preliminary objection of the respondents to the petition that a petitioner having participated in the selection process cannot challenge the same. The challenge of the petitioner is not based on the constitution of the interview panel or such similar ground which would disqualify the petitioner from filing a petition once having participated. If after participation a candidate notices irregularity in conduct of the selection, his mere participation would not foreclose his right of challenge. Upholding any such contention would give a total license to the selection agencies to act willfully and arbitrarily in the selection processes. The principle that one who participated in the selection process cannot challenge validity thereof flows from the premise that if the candidate had been successful during such selection, surely he would not have challenged the validity of the selection process. However such a logic cannot be applied when the candidate who has participated in the selection process points out irregularity or illegality committed during the selection process.

Despite the above conclusion, I find that on merits the petitioner has not made out any case. As is well settled through a series of judgments, interference in the selection process carried out by expert bodies and specially constituted committees, at the hands of the Court would be an exception. Unless gross illegality or mala fides are established, the Court would not substitute its opinion for that of such expert bodies. In the present case, no mala fides are established though the petitioner has vaguely contended that he was a better suited candidate than those who were selected. However, the allotment of internal merit marks must be left to the interview panels. The Government has issued guidelines for such interviews from time to time. Perusal of the guidelines would show that these guidelines to a large extent eliminate the discretionary marks to be awarded by the interview panel. In absence of evidence of substantial large scale, deviation from such guidelines, routine interference with the selection process would not be justified. Merely because the petitioner possessed experience which was stated to be a desirable qualification, would not make him an automatic choice.

In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.

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