AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[1] All these writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1205 of 2016 [Sri Shyamal Ghosh versus State of Tripura and Others],W.P.(C) No.1215 of 2016 [Sri Sri Manik Lal Deb versus State of Tripura and Others],W.P.(C) No.1216 of 2016 [Sri Dilip Sarkar versus State of Tripura and Others], W.P.(C) No.1217 of 2016 [Sri Kanulal Debnath versus State of Tripura and Others], W.P.(C) No.1218 of 2016 [Sri Sukanta Goswami versus State of Tripura and Others],W.P.(C) No.1219 of 2016 [Sri Anupam Pal versus State of Tripura and Others], W.P.(C) No.1220 of 2016 [Sri Sujit Kumar Datta versus State of Tripura and Others] & W.P.(C) No.1221 of 2016 [Sri Naresh Chandra Deb versus State of Tripura and Others] are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as those are structured on identical facts and visited by a common question of law.
[2] The facts which are undisputed are briefly noted at the outset. Tripura Public Service Commission, in short TPSC, [the respondent No.3], received requisition from the Education (Youth Affairs and Sports) Department by the communication dated 27.01.2015 for recruitment of 16(sixteen) Sports Officers (Group-B Gazetted). As per the recruitment rules, for the post of sports officer, the essential and other communications are as follows :
"(A) Essential
(i) Bachelor's Degree from a recognized University with B.P.Ed./D.P.Ed./B.Ed. (Physical Education)/ Diploma in Coaching from NSNIS or B.P.Ed. from a recognized University and (ii) 5 years experience in Coaching/Office Administration.
(B) Desirable
Knowledge of Bengali/Kok Borak"
[3] In terms of the said requisition, the TPSC published the employment notification for selection of the candidates along with some other posts under the advertisement No.05/2015 dated 14.02.2015. In the said advertisement, the posts of Sports Officers appear at serial No.4. Accordingly, applications were made by the intending candidates. On scrutiny of all documents submitted along with the applications, the TPSC declared the names of provisionally eligible candidates in its website as on 14.01.2016 (see Annexure- C to the reply filed by the TPSC). All the petitioners were there in the said list. Thereafter, the TPSC declared the date of screening test on 02.02.2016. The screening test was duly held on 02.02.2016 and thereafter, the personality test of the candidates was held on 12.05.2016. It is to be noted that those who have crossed the bench mark were asked to appear in the personality test on 12.05.2016. Even though, there was requisition for selecting 16(sixteen) suitable candidates for filling up the vacant post of Sports Officers but only 10(ten) candidates were successful to cross the bench mark as set up by the TPSC.
[4] By the notification dated 16.04.2016 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) those 10(ten) candidates were asked to appear in the interview/personality tests. According to the guide lines of the TPSC as published by the memorandum dated 15.02.2016, against one vacancy, 5(five) candidates are called for interview/personality test in the non-schedule selection process. But that number is subject to achieving the qualifying marks or cut-off marks. The final result of the screening test was published and is available with the reply filed by the TPSC (see Annexure-E to the writ petition). Having overall assessment thus, the TPSC recommended 9(nine) candidates for appointment to the post of Sports Officer. The said recommendation was made by the notification under No.F.11(93- 1)/Rectt/TPSC/2015(Vol-I) dated 15.06.2016. For purpose of reference, the names of the recommended candidates, the private respondents, are reproduced hereunder in order of merit as determined by the said selection process. Due to non availability of eligible/suitable candidates, no candidates could be recommended against the remaining 7 vacancies (SC-2 & ST-5) against the temporary posts of Sports Officers.
Sl.
No.
Name of the
candidates
Roll No.
Category
Total Marks obtained
(Out of 200)
1.
Bibhabasu Goswami,
S/O-Late Rebati Raman Goswami
10024
UR
117.56
2.
Amit Kumar Yadav, S/O-Laxmi Narayan
Yadav
10060
UR
115.77
3.
Mihir Shil S/O-Babul Shil,
10008
UR
112.32
4.
Bharti Nigam, D/O-Shyam Lal Nigam,
10049
UR
111.34
5.
Santanu Sutradhar, S/O-Lt. Gopinath
Sutradhar,
10058
UR
105.93
6.
Kamalendu Shil,
S/O-Anil Ch. Shil
10050
UR
104.86
7.
Hritesh Sil, S/O-Ramesh Chandra Sil
10059
UR
104.08
8.
Dibakar Debnath, S/O-Madhusudhan
Debnath
10007
UR
103.54
9.
Dhiman Biswas, S/O-Nani Gopal Biswas
10009
SC
91.47
With the said notification dated 15.06.2016 [Annexure-F to the reply filed by the TPSC] an appendix comprising educational qualification and experience of the recommended candidates [Annexure-G to the reply filed by the TPSC] was sent to the government for their consideration. After the recommendation was made, all the petitioners suddenly broke their slumber and challenged the selection of the private respondents (the recommended candidates) and urged this court to set aside the selection and recommendation for appointment to the post of Sports Officer as made by the said notification dated 15.06.2016 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition and Annexure-F to the reply filed by the TPSC]. It has been further urged to direct the respondent No.3, the Director of Youth Affairs and Sports to consider their selection and recommendation to the said post.
[5] Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the petitioners have their requisite qualifications in terms of the recruitment rules and as such, they are eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Sports Officers. Mr. Datta, learned counsel in his beginning remark has contended that all the relevant documents are available in the lead case [Sri Shyamal Ghosh versus the State of Tripura being WP(C)No.1205 of 2016]. The main stay of the challenge is that the petitioners were illegally excluded by the screening test and they were not called for interview/personality test. The TPSC would have determined the comparative merit after the interview/personality test. Since that process was not followed, the entire selection process is arbitrary. As there is no challenge against the requisition, this court would refer the reply filed by the TPSC to appreciate the position taken by the TPSC on the face of the allegation as made by the writ petitioners. It has been asserted that all the writ petitioners were aware about the purpose of the screening test which was held on 02.02.2016. Having full knowledge about the purpose of the screening test, they appeared in the said test. The TPSC by the memorandum dated 15.02.2015 has laid down the cut-off marks to qualify in the screening test as under :
Sl. No.
Category of vacancy
Cut-off marks
1.
UR
35 (thirty five)
2.
SC, SC (Differently abled), SC (Ex Serviceman),
30 (thirty)
3.
ST, ST (Differently abled), ST (Ex Serviceman),
25 (twenty five)
The TPSC has categorically asserted that all the petitioners got excluded for the simple reason that they could not achieve the minimum cut-off of mark [the bench mark]. From the result of the screening test held on 02.02.2016 [see Annexure-E to the reply filed by the TPSC]. It is apparent that the petitioners secured the marks as noted in the table below.
Sl. No.
Name of the writ
petitioner
Roll No.
Category
Marks obtained
1.
Sri Shyamal Ghosh in WP(C)1205 of 2016
10041
UR
19.50
2.
Sri Manik Lal Deb in W.P.(C) No.1215 of
2016
10016
UR
34.00
3.
Sri Dilip Sarkar in W.P.(C) No.1216 of
2016
10061
SC
23.00
4.
Sri Kanulal Debnath in W.P.(C) No.1217
of 2016
10036
UR
16.50
5.
Sri Sukanta Goswami in W.P.(C) No.1218
of 2016
10033
UR
18.00
6.
Sri Anupam Pal in W.P.(C) No.1219 of
2016
10017
UR
17.00
7.
Sri Sujit Kumar Datta in W.P.(C) No.1220
of 2016
10029
UR
29.00
8.
Sri Naresh Chandra Das in W.P.(C)
No.1221 of 2016
10039
SC
6.00
It is apparent therefore that the writ petitioners failed to achieve the bench mark to be called for interview/personality test.
[6] Mr. Datta, learned counsel has further asserted that the writ petitioners remained a ring-side observer till the recommendation was made. But their exclusion by way of the screening test was known to them when the notification dated 18.04.2016 [Annexure-D to the reply filed by the TPSC] was published in three well circulated dailies and in the web site of the TPSC. According to Mr. Datta, learned counsel, all the writ petitions are hit by the principle of estoppel by conduct inasmuch as acceding to the adverted procedure of the selection test, the writ petitioners participated but when the final outcome was known to them, they preferred these writ petitions. In this regard, Mr. Datta, learned counsel has referred the decision of the apex court in Ashok Kumar and Another versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 where the law has been restated having approved Ramesh Chandra Shah versus Anil Joshi reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309. In Ramesh Chandra Shah (supra) it was held as follows :
"18. It is settled law that person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome."
Having distinguished Raj Kumar versus Shakti Raj reported in (1997) 9 SCC 527, the apex court in Ashok Kumar (supra) has further observed that a candidate took a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection.
[7] Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel as well as scrutinised the averments, this court is of the view that there is no challenge against the process for being arbitrary or illegal. As the writ petitioners failed to achieve the required bench mark in the screening test, their exclusion cannot be stated to be arbitrary. That apart, the action of the writ petitioners are certainly hit by the principle of estoppel by conduct. Thus, the cumulative effect of these findings would be that all the writ petitions are bereft of merit and accordingly, those are dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as costs.