Subangkari Podder And Ors vs District And Sessions Judge And Ors

[1] These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard for final disposal together and would be disposed of by this judgment.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

In WP(C) No.196 of 2020, the petitioner Smt. Subhangkari Podder had appeared in the written examination as well as oral interview for selection to the post of Peon, Group-D in the District Court in the State of Tripura for which public advertisement was issued on 24.04.2015. The selection process consisted of a written test of 75 marks followed by an oral interview of qualified candidates which would carry 25 marks. The petitioner appeared in the written test as well as oral interview. The respondents initially published a notification dated 02.05.2017 which contained the serial number wise position of all the candidates who had appeared in the written and the oral examinations. This notification provided only the total marks secured by the candidates which would be total marks awarded in the written examination and oral interview. The name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.64 in such list. She was shown to have scored a total of 68 out of 100 marks. Subsequently, the respondents also provided the breakup of the marks secured by the candidates in the written and oral interviews separately under a memorandum dated 20.06.2018. From this it can be gathered that the petitioner had scored 68 out of 75 marks in the written test and was awarded zero marks in the oral interview.

[3] The petitioner would point out that though initially 25 vacancies were notified, due to variety of reasons, the number of vacancies was enlarged with the approval of the High Court and eventually from the list of successful candidates published vide the said notification dated 02.05.2017, total of 65 appointments were made. The petitioner would further point out that the last selected candidate in the Un-reserved (UR) category to which she belongs, had scored of 72 out of 100 marks.

[4] In such a background, the case of the petitioner is that the interview committee committed a serious error in awarding zero out of 25 marks to the petitioner. Mr. Arijit Bhaumik for the petitioner drew my attention to a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Jakir Miah versus District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura and others dated 11.02.2020 in WP(C) No.894 of 2018 and connected petitions in which under somewhat similar circumstances, the High Court had provided for conducting a fresh interview of the petitioners therein and to grant appointment if pursuant to such exercise the petitioners qualified.

[5] In WP(C) No.304 of 2020 facts are substantially similar. Here also the petitioner Prasenjit Debnath who belongs to the Un-reserved (UR) category had appeared for selection to the same post in the said selection process. The breakup of the result showed that he had secured 70 out of 100 marks in the written test but was awarded zero in the viva-voce. He also relies on the decision of the learned Single Judge in case of Jakir Miah (supra). His counsel would point out that the decision of this Court in case of Jakir Miah (supra) has been accepted by the respondents, implemented and the petitioners therein after fresh interviews have been offered appointments against the existing vacancies in the Un-reserved quota of the candidates.

[6] The above noted factual aspects are not in dispute at all. The petitioners of these two petitions who belong to UR category had secured 68 and 70 out of 75 marks respectively in the written examination but were both awarded zero marks by the interview panel in the viva-voce test. Under very similar circumstances, the learned Single Judge in case of Jakir Miah (supra) had allowed the petitions. In the said case, the petitioner Jakir Miah had secured 61 out of 75 marks in the written examination whereas another petitioner Rajesh Debnath had secured 68 out of 75 marks. Both had appeared in the oral interviews and were given zero marks. The learned Judge noticed certain discrepancies in the conduct of the interviews. It was noted that the interview committee had decided to allot marks for basic qualifications. It was, therefore, felt that awarding zero marks did not make sense. The petitions were disposed of with the following observations and directions:

"[7] Ms. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, has produced the record of viva-voce test and that has been perused by this court, but how marks were distributed is not available from the records of interview. It is not denied that the petitioners have participated in the said proceeding. It is, however, accepted that some marks have been allotted on the basis of the qualification. If that is so, it is really absurd how the petitioners can secure zero in the viva-voce test. Even the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 have not stated the method they have followed in the viva-voce. It is really strange that no method has been recorded anywhere in the records, even not in the sheet, where they have given marks. From one of the sheets, it appears that there were two aspects against which the marks are allotted and from another sheet used by one of the interviewers, it surfaces that there were three aspects. It appears that the interviewers have given marks without following any uniform procedure.

[8] Be that as it may, this court is of the view that the marks awarded to the petitioners in the interview are not only illogical but also unintelligible. Having observed thus, the respondent No.1 is directed to take fresh interview of the petitioners within a month from the day of receiving a copy of this order. If they are found suitable after aggregating the marks of the written examination and the viva-voce test, the petitioners shall be accommodated against the vacancy available at present and accordingly they would be appointed. If they can cross the mark secured by the last selectee, namely Kanchan Das, then only the question of appointing the petitioners would arise.

[9] It is needless to say that the petitioners are to be considered in the UR category and that is the reason why the last candidate in the UR category has been referred.

[10] It is made absolutely clear the petitioners will not get any benefit retrospectively. They would get all the benefits from the date of their appointment only, if they are selected in the process. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory application, if any, pending stands disposed of."

[7] Quite apart from the said decision in case of Jakir Miah (supra), independently also I find that the petitioners are entitled to similar reliefs. Having gone through the result sheets and in particular one published under notification dated 20.06.2018 I find it intriguing that in number of cases as in case of the present petitioners as well as in case of Jakir Miah and his co-petitioner, candidates who had secured heavily in the written examination in the range of 61 to 70 out of 75 marks, have been awarded zero marks in the oral interviews. As noted by the learned Single Judge in case of Jakir Miah (supra) if the interview panel had decided to award some marks for basic qualifications, it is simply impossible to understand how these candidates were awarded zero marks. They must, therefore, get a fresh chance to appear before the reconstituted interview committee and get the benefit of appointment if they qualify. Like in the earlier case in case of Jakir Miah (supra) these petitioners also cannot claim the benefit of any past period. In other words, their appointments and all service benefits even if they eventually secure appointments, shall be prospective from the date of appointment. This is more so since they filed the petitions only in the middle of 2020. However, I cannot accept the suggestion of Ms. P. Dhar for the respondents who urged me to dismiss the petitions on the grounds of delay and latches. Firstly, the delay is not as inordinate as she tried to make it out to be. When on 20.03.2017 the respondents published the notification giving the list of candidates who had appeared showing their relative merit positions, the breakup of marks allotted in the written examination and oral interviews was not available. This was placed in public domain only under the notification dated 20.06.2018. Delay if at all must be reckoned such a date. The petitioners who were seeking employment in the lowest category of Government service and whose basic qualifications required was Class-VIII pass, cannot be expected to move a court of law immediately. The very fact that the petitioners are getting the benefit of reconstitution of the interview committee and eventual appointments, if made prospectively, is sufficient moulding of the relief that they have claimed. This should take care of the angle of delay in approaching the Court.

[8] Under the circumstances, the petitions are disposed of with the following directions.

(i) The respondents shall constitute a fresh interview committee which would comprise of the same level (but not necessarily the same judicial officers) of officers as in the original interview committee and take a fresh interview of both the petitioners.

(ii) This shall be done within a period of four months from today.

(iii) On the basis of the marks that may be allotted pursuant to such fresh interviews and the marks scored by the petitioners in the written examination, if they deserve selection against Un-reserved quota of candidates, they shall be appointed to the said post.

(iv) Such appointments shall be prospective and shall carry no benefits of the past period.

(v) Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from today.

[9] With these directions, petitions are disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.