Sumit Chowdhury vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

This Appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge a judgment dated 14.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.745 of 2019.

Brief facts are as under:

The Director of Health Services had issued employment Notification dated 24.05.2016 inviting applications for filling-up 95 vacancies in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk of which 45 were for un-reserved category candidates. The petitioner having necessary educational qualification applied to the post in question in such category. He was called for interview and on the basis of employment policy prevailing at the relevant time was assigned 58 out of 100 marks. The last selected candidate in the un-reserved category was awarded 60 marks. The petitioner pointed out that he belonged to BPL category with monthly family income of Rs.4,500/-. As per the employment policy, 25 marks were earmarked for 'need criteria'. This 'need criteria' was further elaborated as under:

"(iv) 'Need

Criteria 'Need‟ shall be as hereunder :

(a) Total income of the family of candidate shall not exceed Rs.1.50 lakh per year and

(b) There is no member in the family having Government employment.‟"

The petitioner was awarded 10 out of 25 marks under this head. He pointed out that several other candidates, who were selected and offered appointment were granted much higher marks under this criteria though, their families had similar monthly incomes. The principle argument of the petitioner was that once need criteria was bifurcated into two heads of total income of the family of the candidate not exceeding Rs.1,50,000/- and there should be no other member of the family employed in Government service, thereafter there was no further discretion with the selection board to award different marks under this head. According to the petitioner, a candidate would either get full 25 marks or zero marks in need criteria. The petitioner also presumably as a subsidiary argument criticized the application of need criteria by the interview committee as being arbitrary. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the interview committee had a discretion to award suitable marks out of 25 for 'need criteria' and since the interview committee had exercised its discretion, the Court would not in exercise of jurisdiction interfere with the same. Resultantly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

At the outset, we may clarify that the validity of assigning marks for 'need criteria' is not in challenge before us in this Appeal. We would, therefore, proceed on the basis that the prescription of 25 marks under the head of 'need criteria' was valid. If we peruse the prescription of 25 marks under this head, we find that the elaboration made in the employment policy, as noted, is twofold. First requirement is that the total income of the family of the candidate should not exceed Rs.1,50,000/- per annum. The second requirement is that there should be no member of the family of the candidate in Government employment. These two criteria would be in the nature of qualifications for securing any marks under the head of 'need criteria'. If these requirements are not fulfilled, the interview committee can suitably reduce the marks to be assigned to the candidate. However, the converse is not true. Therefore, if a candidate fulfills both these requirements, he cannot insist that he must be awarded full 25 marks under this head. This, thus, gives certain discretionary powers to the interview committee. However, where the interview committee decides to exercise its discretion, the same must be uniformly done. When such discretion is based on quantifiable parameters, it must also be demonstrated that it is uniformly applied. In this context, we may reproduce the data analyzed and recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment which contains the breakup of total marks awarded to the respective candidates, the monthly income of the family of the candidate and the marks awarded to the candidate under 'need criteria'. This data which is put in a tabulated form reads as under:

Sl.

No.

Name

Total Marks Obtained

BPL/Adhoc BPL/APL

Family Income (P.M.)

Marks given in Need

Criteria

1.

Sumit Choudhury

(Petitioner) [Sl. No.6076]

58 (Page 38)

Adhoc BPL (Page 25)

Rs.4500/- (Page 26)

10 (Page 38)

2.

Bidyut Ghosh

(Respondent No.3) [Sl. No.860]

60 (Page 37)

BPL Page 86

Rs.3000/- (Page 79)

16 (Page 37)

3.

Rahul Datta

(Respondent No.4) [Sl. No.959]

60 (Page 37)

Adhoc BPL (Page 96)

Rs.4000/- (Page 95)

16 (Page 37)

4.

Sukanta Debnath

(Respondent No.5) [Sl. No.964]

60 (Page 37)

BPL (Page 102)

Rs.4500/- (Page 101)

16 (Page 37)

5.

Sanjib Paul

(Respondent no.6) [Sl. No.1629]

60 (Page 37)

(Page 110)

Rs.3500/- (Page 111)

18 (Page 37)

6.

Sukanta Debnath

(Respondent No.7) [Sl. No.5890]

60 (Page 38)

APL (Page 123)

Rs.3500/- (Page 121)

15 (Page 38)

This data shows some disturbing figures. The petitioner who is shown at serial no.1 here and whose monthly family income was Rs.4,500/- has been awarded 10 marks under 'need criteria'. Another candidate Sukanta Debnath, who also had identical monthly income, has been awarded 16 out of 25 marks. Another candidate Rahul Datta, who had monthly income of Rs.4,000/- i.e. less than that of candidate Sukanta Debnath was also awarded 16 marks. In another comparison, we find that the candidate Bidyut Ghosh whose monthly income of Rs.3,000/- was awarded 16 marks whereas candidate Sanjib Paul with income of Rs.3,500/- is awarded 18 marks. This distribution of marks completely defies logic. Once interview committee decides to base its assessment of 'need criteria' on the monthly income, there has to be uniform standards, which must be applied equally to all candidates. The interview committee simply cannot award different marks to different candidates though both may have identical monthly family incomes. This is precisely what has happened in the present case. The petitioner, in particular, has got at least 6 marks less than other candidates, who on the score of monthly family income were similarly situated. No case is setup by the respondents that different marks for identical family incomes were awarded looking to the number of members of the families concerned. To be included in the select list, the petitioner required only two more marks since as noted, his tally was 58 marks whereas the last selected UR category candidate was awarded 60 marks.

In the result, we are inclined to allow this Appeal. In facts of the case, the relief that may be granted shall have to be molded. We are informed that the selected candidates had to appear in type test and only those who passed the typing test were offered appointment. The petitioner must go through the same process.

The Appeal is disposed of with following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall be offered appointment on the existing vacancy of LDC on UR candidate if he passes the type test which may be conducted within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today. If there is no vacancy existing, he shall be offered appointment on the first available vacancy which may arise. In either case, his appointment shall be prospective and his pay, allowances and seniority shall be counted from the date of his joining service.

These directions shall be carried out within 3(three) months from today or as soon as, the new vacancy arises, if there is no existing vacancy.

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