Smti Anjumoni Baishya vs State Of Assam And Ors

Heard Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi,

learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondents. Both the writ petitions have been filed on inter-connected facts raising

more or less identical issues and, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same by this common order.

The Principal Conservator of Forest, Assam had earlier issued an advertisement notice on 13/08/2010 inviting applications, inter-alia, for filling up 84

posts of Junior Assistant (Divisional Level). Both the writ petitioners had submitted their candidature for appointment to the post of Junior

Assistant (Divisional Level). The selection process consisted of written test and viva-voce and the candidates who succeeded in the written test were

to be called for viva voce. The writ petitioner in WP(C) 3900/2012, viz. Smt. Anjumani Baishya did not qualify in the written test and hence, she was

not called for the viva voce test. However, Smt. Gitika Baishya, the writ petitioner in WP(C) 6197/2012 had cleared the written test and had taken

part in the viva voce but her name did not figure in the final select list published by the authorities on 28/11/2012 containing the name of the selected

candidates.

The grievance expressed in WP(C) 3900/2012 is that the petitioner could learn from the answer script furnished to her by the authorities that she

was not given any marks in respect of the questions in serial no.38, 46, 71, 87, 90 and 95 although the answers were correct and, therefore, the

selection process was conducted in an illegal manner, thereby vitiating the final select list dated 28/12/2012.

The writ petitioner in WP(C) 6197/2012 had also made an allegations that the selection process was vitiated on account of several illegalities but

she has failed to substantiate through her pleadings as to the nature of illegalities that had occurred in the selection process. The writ petitioner in

WP(C) 7197/2012 has, however, taken an additional ground that 30% reservation for women as required under the Assam Women (Reservation of

Vacancies in the Service and Posts) Act, 2005, was not followed in this case while filling up the 84 vacancies.

Mr. Medhi, learned AAG, Assam has produced the original answer script of Smt. Anjumani Baishya which goes to show that she had used

whiteners in some of the answers, as a result of which no marks were given to her in respect of those answers given against question nos. 38, 46, 71,

87, 90 and 95. Mr. Medhi contends that whitener is not one of the substances which was permissible for a candidate to carry inside the examination

hall and, therefore, the respondents could not have awarded marks to the candidate who has illegally used whitener while answering those questions.

Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners has examined the answer script produced in original but does not deny the assertion

of Mr. Medhi in that regard.

There is no other ground projected in WP(C) No. 3900/2012.

Coming to the facts of WP(C) No. 6197/2012, I find that the select list containing only the Roll Nos. of the candidates, have been brought on

record. From the roll numbers, it is not possible to identify the candidates. Mr. Medhi submits that there is nothing on record to show that less than

30% of the female candidates , appointed in the process were female, as has been alleged by the petitioner.

From a careful analysis of the materials on record, I do not find anything to indicate the actual number of female candidates who have been

appointed by operating the select list dated 28/11/2012. In the absence of authentic facts and figures brought on record, it is not possible for this Court

to determine as to whether 30% reservation meant for the women as per the Act of 2005 has been followed in this case or not.

In view of what has been discussed above, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions and the same are accordingly

dismissed. However, considering the grievance expressed in WP(C) 6197/2012, the writ petitioner therein, viz. Smt. Gitika Baishya is granted liberty to

seek correct information through RTI application and thereafter, avail remedy as may be available to her under the law, if so advised.

The records be returned back.

There would be no order as to costs.