Utpal Sinha vs State Of Tripura And Ors

The petitioner has challenged a notification dated 21.02.2019 issued by the official respondents appointing the respondent No.6 herein on the post of Immunization Field Volunteer (IFV, for short) on a contractual basis in the organization of District Health & Family Welfare Society functioning under the control of the State Government.

Brief facts are as under:

The official respondents had advertised several posts including one post of IFV to be filled up on contractual basis. The petitioner, respondent No.6 and other several candidates had applied. Eligible candidates were called for written examination. Petitioner and the respondent No.6 both received identical 38 marks in such written examination. They were the only two candidates to have cleared the written examination. They were both called for oral interview which was scheduled on 27.12.2018. The petitioner appeared on such date. Respondent No.6 was, however, absent. Subsequently interviews were rescheduled on 03.01.2019 when the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 both remained present. The respondent No.6 was selected and appointed.

According to the petitioner, since the respondent No.6 was absent on the scheduled date of interview his candidature should have been ignored. The petitioner was the only person who had appeared in the interviews and he should have, therefore, been appointed.

Case of the respondents, however, is that no interviews were conducted on 27.12.2018 since the respondent No.6 was not present. In the evening of 27.12.2018 itself respondent No.6 gave an application to the authorities contending that due to server problem the date of oral interview had not come to his notice. In any case, on the same day there was a local election. He had gone to vote. On the date of election interviews should not have been scheduled. He requested for a fresh chance to appear for interview. The administration accepted such request and, therefore, rescheduled the interviews on 03.01.2019 when both the petitioner and the respondent No.6 were interviewed. Respondent No.6 was awarded higher marks than the petitioner in such interviews and was, therefore, offered appointment.

In addition to hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the original file of selection process. The file contains the application made by the respondent No.6 as well as the notings of the authorities which ultimately led to the decision of reconvening the interview committee meeting. There is nothing on record to suggest that on 27.12.2018 even the petitioner was interviewed. Contrary to what is argued before me orally by the counsel for the petitioner, even the petitioner has in the petition not stated that his interview was conducted on 27.12.2018. He has only stated that he had remained present and in absence of only other rival candidate, he ought to have been appointed. Thus, the official respondents, on account of absence of respondent No.6 had not conducted the interview of the petitioner also on the said date. Whether they should have postponed or cancelled the interview of the said date altogether is not important. The fact is that having done so, on the same date, the record reflects an application being made by the respondent No.6 citing reasons for his absence. These reasons were reasonable and accepted by the administration. The petitioner was also given a fair opportunity to participate. Both the candidates were duly interviewed on 03.01.2019.

This is thus not a case where the interview committee had closed the proceedings on 27.12.2018 by interviewing the only one candidate who had appeared before them but had kept the proceedings unconcluded. The decision to give an additional chance to respondent No.6 and at the same time fair opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the interview cannot be stated to be unreasonable. In the interview the respondent No.6 had got more marks than the petitioner.

In the result, the petition fails and dismissed.

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