The petitioner before this Court is presently serving as a Supervisory Assistant in the Deputy Commissioner Establishment, Nalbari, Assam. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he applied for selection and appointment ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page1of23
GAHC010097142020
INTHEGAUHATIHIGHCOURT
(HIGHCOURTOFASSAM,NAGALAND,MIZORAM&ARUNACHALPRADESH)
PRINCIPALSEAT
W.P(C)NO.3029/2020
SriBhubaneswarSarma,
Age-55years
SupervisoryAssistant
OfficeoftheDeputyCommissioner,
Nalbari
P.O-Nalbari,P.S.Nalbari,District.
Nalbari
PIN781335
……..Petitioner
-Versus-
1.StateofAssam,
RepresentedbySecretary,GovernmentofAssam,
Dispur,GeneralAdministrationDepartment,Janata
Bhawan,Dispur,Guwahati-6
2.CommissionerLowerAssamDivision,Assam,
Guwahati,Panbazar,District-Kamrup(M)
3.DeputyCommissioner,Nalbari,P.O-Nalbari,P.S.
Nalbari,District-Nalbari,PIN781335
4.SriUmeshCh.Das,
RevenueSharistader,OfficeoftheDeputy
Commissioner,Nalbari,PIN781335
……..Respondents W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page1of23
GAHC010097142020
INTHEGAUHATIHIGHCOURT
(HIGHCOURTOFASSAM,NAGALAND,MIZORAM&ARUNACHALPRADESH)
PRINCIPALSEAT
W.P(C)NO.3029/2020
SriBhubaneswarSarma,
Age-55years
SupervisoryAssistant
OfficeoftheDeputyCommissioner,
Nalbari
P.O-Nalbari,P.S.Nalbari,District.
Nalbari
PIN781335
……..Petitioner
-Versus-
1.StateofAssam,
RepresentedbySecretary,GovernmentofAssam,
Dispur,GeneralAdministrationDepartment,Janata
Bhawan,Dispur,Guwahati-6
2.CommissionerLowerAssamDivision,Assam,
Guwahati,Panbazar,District-Kamrup(M)
3.DeputyCommissioner,Nalbari,P.O-Nalbari,P.S.
Nalbari,District-Nalbari,PIN781335
4.SriUmeshCh.Das,
RevenueSharistader,OfficeoftheDeputy
Commissioner,Nalbari,PIN781335
……..Respondents
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page2of23
–BEFORE–
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICESOUMITRASAIKIA
Advocateforthepetitioner :Mr.S.K.Goswami,Advocate
Advocatefortherespondents:Mr.J.K.Goswami,Addl.Sr.GovernmentAdv.
Mr.A.Phukan,SC,GAC
Mr.R.AlifortheRespondentNo.4
DateofHearing :20.02.2024
DateofJudgment&Order: :22.05.2024
JUDGMENTANDORDER(CAV)
ThepetitionerbeforethisCourtispresentlyservingasa
SupervisoryAssistantintheDeputyCommissionerEstablishment,
Nalbari,Assam.Thegrievanceofthepetitioneristhatalthough
heappliedforselectionandappointmenttothepostofRevenue
Sheristadarandalthoughhepossesallnecessaryqualifications
andsatisfiesallthenormsandrequirementshewasnotselected
rathertheprivaterespondentNo.4wasselectedandappointed.
Beingaggrieved,thepresentwritpetitionhasbeenfiled.
2.Thelearnedcounselforthewritpetitionersubmitsthatby
Advertisementdated05.07.2019,thepostofRevenueSheristadar
intheamalgamatedestablishmentofDeputyCommissioner,
Nalbariwasadvertised.Inthesaidadvertisement,qualificationfor
theposthasbeenprescribedis15yearsofserviceinanyofthe
DeputyCommissionerEstablishment,Assamandhasexperience
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page3of23
indifferencebranchesinGeneralandRevenueBranchin
particular.Inresponsetothesaidadvertisement,thepetitioner
havingtherequisitequalificationsforwardedhiscandidaturefor
dueconsideration.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionersubmits
thattheservicesofthepetitionerandtheprivaterespondentNo.
4aregovernedundertheAssamMinisterialDistrictEstablishment
ServiceRules,1967.Thesaidservicecomprisesofseveralcadres
includingSupervisoryAssistantandRevenueSheristadar.The
Rulesprescribedthateachofthecategoriesofpostsprescribed
thereinshallformedanindependentcadre.Thepostsof
SheristadarwasamendedbyGazetteNotificationdated
25.08.1999andwasnotifiedasRevenueSheristadar.The
qualificationoftheposthasbeenprescribedas15yearsof
serviceinanyDeputyCommissionerEstablishmentsandmust
haveexperienceofworkingunderdifferentbranchesinthe
DepartmentincludingRevenueBranchinparticular.Thepostisa
selectionpostandtheselectionistobeconductedbyaselection
Boardcomprisingoffour(4)members.TheSecretaryofthe
GeneralAdministrativeDepartmentistheChairman,
CommissioneroftheconcernedDivisionandDeputy
CommissioneroftheconcernedDistrictareMembersandthe
DeputySecretarytotheGovernmentofAssam,General
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page4of23
Administration(B)DepartmentistheSecretaryofthesaid
Committee.TheselectionBoard/Committeewillexaminethe
AnnualConfidentialReportandotherrelevantserviceparticulars
oftheeligiblecandidatesforassessmentofmerit.Afterdue
assessment,alistofnamesintheorderofpreferencewillbe
preparedandthesameshallbeforwardedtotheAppointing
Authorities.TheGovernmentofAssambyNotificationdated
01.07.1999hasalreadyinformedthatselectiontothepostof
RevenueSheristadarshallbestrictlyonmerit.
3.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthatthough
thepetitionerpossessedallthenecessaryqualificationandhad
moremeritthantheprivaterespondentyettheprivate
respondentwasselectedasthecandidateforthepostofRevenue
Sheristadarbytheselectioncommitteeoverthewritpetitioner.
Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthatpursuantto
theorderspassedbytheselectioncommittee,hehadapplied
underRTIandinthereplyreceived,itisseenfromtheMinutes
thatalthoughtheCommissioner,LowerAssamDivisionisa
MemberofthecommitteebutonlyoneSectionOfficertothe
Commissionerwaspresentinthemeetingwhichisin
contraventionwithRule7oftheAssamMinisterialDistrict
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page5of23
Establishment(Amendment)Rules,1999.Thelearnedcounsel
forthepetitionerfurthersubmitsthatalthoughtheselectionto
thepostofRevenueSheristadarwastobeconductedstrictlyon
merit,yettheselectioncommitteedidnotassesstheinterse
meritofthecandidatesandinsteadmerelyrecommendedthe
privaterespondenttothepostofRevenueSheristadar.Itis
submittedthatfortherelevantperiod,thepetitionerhadbeen
awarded‘VeryGood’foralltherelevantyearsunderconsideration
inhisACRascomparedtoprivaterespondentwhowasnot
awarded‘VeryGood’allthroughout.Itissubmittedthatinsofar
asthepresentwritpetitionerisconcernedhehadbeengraded
‘VeryGood’continuouslyforfiveyearswhereastheprivate
respondenthasbeengraded‘VeryGood’fortwoyearsand‘Good’
forthreeyears.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthereisacircularof
theGovernmentofAssamwherebydifferentgradingswere
requiredtobeallotteddifferentmarksasunder:
(i)Good:1marks;
(ii)VeryGood:2marksand
(iii).Excellent:3marks
4.Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthatifthese
markingswereallottedtotheACRsofthewritpetitionerthenhe
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page6of23
wouldhavesecuredhighermarksandwouldhavebeenselected
astheRevenueSheristadarinplaceoftheprivaterespondent.He
submitsthatthesemarkingswereneverawardedandthenorms
prescribedhavebeenfloutedbytheselectioncommitteeand
thereforetheselectionmadeiscontrarytotheprovisionsoflaw
anditshouldaccordinglybesetasideandquashed.Thelearned
counselforthepetitionerfurthersubmitsthattheprivate
respondentdidnothaveanyexperienceofworkinginthe
RevenueBranch.HemerelyworkedasaRecordKeeperinthe
RevenueDepartmentandthereforehedidnothaveany
experienceofrenderingserviceintheRevenueBranchbutall
thesefactorswerenottakennotofbytheSelectioncommittee
andconsequentlytheselectioncommitteebytheirMinutesdated
02.01.2020recommendedtheprivaterespondentandpursuant
theretotheprivaterespondentwasappointedvideimpugned
orderdated27.01.2020.
Thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerhasrelieduponthe
JudgmentoftheApexCourtinMukulKumarTyagiVs.Stateof
UttarPradesh,reportedin(2020)4SCC86insupportofhis
contentionthatcandidateswhoparticipatedinaselectionprocess
canseekjudicialreviewwhenpersonswhodidnotfulfillessential
qualificationswereincludedintheselectlist.Itissubmittedthat
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page7of23
sincethewritpetitionerhadbettergradingsintheACR,therewas
nooccasionfortheSelectionCommitteetoselecttheprivate
respondentoverthewritpetitioner.
Thelearnedcounselforthepetitioneralsorelieduponthe
JudgmentofSubodhChinteyVs.StateofAssamandOrs,
reportedin2012(1)GLT377andRamaniMalakarVs.Stateof
AssampassedinW.P(C)No.5059/2022videJudgmentandOrder
dated30.08.2023.
Thelearnedcounselforthepetitioneralsorelieduponthe
JudgmentoftheApexCourtinR.S.Dassvs.UnionofIndiaand
Ors.,reportedin1986(Supp)SCC617insupportofhis
contentionthatwherethecriteriaforselectionismerit,seniority
hasnoroletoplay.
5.Mr.A.Phukan,learnedStandingCounsel,GADontheother
handdisputesthecontentionsraisedbythelearnedcounselfor
thepetitioner.ReferringtoRule6ofRulesof1967hesubmits
thatforthepostofSheristadar,personsmusthaveexperienced
of15yearsinanyDeputyCommissionerEstablishmentsandin
differentBranchesinGeneralandRevenueBranchinparticular.
HesubmitsthattherankandstatusoftheRevenueSheristadar
andtheAdministrativeOfficeraresimilar.Fordirectrecruitment,
theprocedureprescribedunderRule8isfollowed.Hesubmits
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page8of23
thattheselectioncommitteeisrequiredtoexaminetheACRsand
serviceparticularsofthecandidatestakingintoaccountthe
considerationoftherespectivemeritofthecandidatesand
thereafterpreparednamesinorderofpreferenceforrecruitment
tothepost.Itissubmittedthattheexperienceandexposurein
revenuemattersisessentialasunderthesaidRuleallrevenue
mattersarerequiredtobelookedafterbytheRevenue
Sheristadar.Itissubmittedthattheprocedureprescribedunder
theRuleshavebeenstrictlyfollowedanduponcomparisonofthe
intersemeritofthecandidates,theselectioncommitteehad
selectedandrecommendedtherespondentNo.4tobethe
selectedcandidateandthereuponhewasappointedtothepostof
RevenueSheristadar.ThelearnedStandingCounselsubmitsthat
undertheRulesthereisnoprocedureprescribedforawarding
Marks.Thecircularreferredtobythepetitionerisnotenclosedto
thewritpetitionnorhasitbeenproducedbeforetheCourtandto
thebestofinformationavailablefromthedepartmentnosuch
circularisavailableintotheDepartment.Thelearnedcounselfor
therespondentDepartmentstrenuouslyurgedthattheinterse
meritwasconsideredbycomparingthesuitabilityofthe
candidates.AcomparisonofthegradingsintherespectiveACRs
aswellastheserviceparticularsrevealedthattherespondentNo.
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page9of23
4hadrenderedmorenumberofyearsintheRevenueBranch
thanthepetitioner.Hesubmitsthatthereisnoinfirmityinthe
selectionandthecontentionsofthecounselforthepetitionerare
unfoundedandtherefore,thewritpetitiondoesnothaveany
meritandshouldthereforebedismissed.ThelearnedStanding
counselfurthersubmitsthattheSectionOfficerofthe
Commissioner,LowerAssamDivisionhasbeenspecifically
authorizedbythecompetentauthorityandthereforethereisno
infirmityinhimbeingthememberoftheSelectioncommittee.
6.Mr.R.Ali,learnedcounselfortheprivaterespondentNo.4
supportsthesubmissionsmadebythelearnedcounselforthe
respondentdepartment.Hesubmitsthatentireselectionis
conductedaspertheprocedureprescribedandthereisno
infirmityintheselectionprocessundertakenbytheselection
committeeandthereforethesubmissionsofthelearnedcounsel
forthepetitionerareunfoundedandthewritpetitionbeing
devoidofmerit,thesameshouldthereforebedismissed.The
learnedcounselfortheprivaterespondentfurthersubmitsthat
thereisaprovisionforappealunderRule12andthereforeonthe
groundofalternativeefficaciousremedywhichthepetitionerdid
notavailof,thepetitionermayberelegatedtofileanappeal
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page10of23
underRule12.Insupporthiscontentions,hehasrelieduponthe
JudgmentoftheApexCourtrenderedinCommissionerofIncome
TaxVs.ChhabilDassAgarwal,reportedin(2014)1SCC603.
RelyingontheJudgment,thelearnedCounselsubmitsthatthe
ApexCourthasheldthatwherestatutoryremediesareavailable
ordinarilythepartyshouldberelegatedtoavailthestatutory
remedies.Itisfurthersubmittedbytheprivaterespondentthat
theACRgradingsreproducedbythewritpetitionerdoesnot
reflectthegradingsofthewritpetitionerfortheperiod
01.04.2017to19.10.2017.Itissubmittedthatthereareno
gradingsforthatparticularperiodintheACRgradingsreferredto
bythewritpetitionerandthereforetheACRisnotcomplete.
7.Inrejoinder,thelearnedcounselforthepetitionersubmits
thattheSectionOfficeroftheCommissioner,LowerAssam
Divisioncannotbeconsideredtobethecompetentofficerto
representtheCommissioner,LowerAssamDivisionasthereisno
provisionfordelegatingthepowertoanyotherauthority.
Furthermore,theappealreferredtobythelearnedcounselforthe
respondentisnotanefficaciousremedyinasmuchasthe
concernedDeputyCommissioneroftheDistrictalongwiththe
Commissioner,LowerAssamDivisionisamemberoftheselection
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page11of23
committee.UnderRule12againsttheordersoftheDeputy
Commissioner,therightofappealwilllietotheCommissionerand
fromtheordersoftheCommissionerbetheChiefSecretary.The
learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthatheisaggrievedby
theselectioncommitteeminutesatthefirstinstanceandthe
impugnedorderofappointmentofrespondentNo.4issuedbythe
SecretaryoftheDepartment.Therefore,therebeingno
alternativeandefficaciousremedy,thiswritpetitionis
maintainable.
8.Thelearnedcounselforthepartieshavebeenheard.
Pleadingsonrecordhavebeencarefullyperused.TheJudgments
referredtohavealsobeencarefullytakennoteof.Therecords
relatingtotheselectionhavebeencalledforandthesameare
alsoplacedbeforetheCourt.Theoriginalrecordshavealsobeen
perused.
9.Beforeweproceedtodealwiththecontroversy,sincethe
questionofmaintainabilityhasbeenraisedbythecounselforthe
respondentNo.4,thesameisrequiredtobeaddressedatthe
outset.TheJudgmentspressedintoserviceinsupportofthe
contentionsofthelearnedcounselfortherespondentNo.4has
beencarefullytakennoteof.InthesaidJudgment,theApex
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page12of23
Courtheldthatordinarilywherethereisstatutoryremedy
availablethepartiesarerequiredtoberelegatedtoavailofsuch
statutoryremedies.Theexceptionstothesaidprinciplehasalso
beendismissedbytheApexCourt.TheApexCourtheldthat(i)
wherethestatutoryauthorityhasnotactedinaccordancewith
theprovisionsoftheenactmentinquestionor(ii)indefinanceof
thefundamentalprinciplesofjudicialprocedureor(iii)has
resortedtoinvoketheprovisionswhicharerepealed,or(iv)when
anorderhasbeenpassedintotalviolationoftheprinciplesof
naturaljustice,thennotwithstandingtheavailabilityoralternative
remedy,thewritCourtcanexercisejurisdictionunderjudicial
review.
10.ItisseenfromtheRulesthattheselectioncommitteeofthe
SelectionBoardistobeconstitutedofthefollowingmembers,
namely:
(a)CommissionerandSecretarytotheGovernmentofAssam,
GeneralAdministrationDepartmentandinhisabsenceSecretary
totheGovernmentofAssam,GeneralAdministration(B)
Department- Chairman
(b)CommissioneroftheconcernedDivision- Member
(c)DeputyCommissioneroftheconcernedDistrict-Member
and
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page13of23
(d)JointSecretaryorinhisabsenceDeputySecretarytothe
GovernmentofAssam,GeneralAdministrationDepartment-
MemberSecretary
11.Fromtheabove,itisclearthattheDeputyCommissioner
andtheCommissioner,LowerAssamDivisionarethemembersof
thesaidselectioncommittee.FromtheRules,noprovisionis
noticedforfilinganyappealagainsttheorderspassedbythe
selectioncommittee.Theimpugnedappointmentorderpassedby
theSecretarytotheGovernmentofAssam,GADisanorder
passedpursuanttotheselectionprocessundertaken.The
challengeinthewritpetitionisprimarilytotheselectionprocess
andtheSelectionCommitteeMinuteswhichwasconductedfor
selectionofRevenueSheristadar.UndertheRules,thereisno
specificprovisionforfilinganappealagainsttheSelection
CommitteeMembers.TheSelectionCommitteeMinutesarenot
orderspassedeitherbytheDeputyCommissionerorbythe
Secretary/CommissioneroftheDepartment.Thisorder/Minutesis
oftheSelectionCommitteesignedbyallthemembers.
12.Undersuchcircumstances,itwillnotbeappropriateto
rejectthewritpetitiononthegroundofalternativeremedyatthis
stage.Accordingly,theCourtnowproceedstoadjudicatethe
issueraisedbeforethisCourt.
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page14of23
13.TheRules6(1)oftheAssamMinisterialDistrict
EstablishmentServiceRules,1967(hereinafterreferredtoas‘the
Ruleof1967’)laysdownthecriteriaforthepostofSheristadar.
TheSheristadaristobeappointedbyselectionfromamongst
personswhomusthaveservedforatleast15yearsinanyDeputy
CommissionersEstablishmentandhaveexperiencesofdifferent
branchesinGeneralandoftheRevenueBranchinparticular.The
procedureforselectionisprescribedunderRule8(iii)oftheRules
of1967.ThesaidprocedureisadoptedforselectionforRevenue
SheristadarinviewofthenoteappendedtothesaidRulesthat
therankandstatusofthepostofAdministrativeOfficershallbe
equaltothatoftheRevenueSheristadar.UnderRule8(iii)ofthe
Ruleof1967,theprocedureprescribedforselectionofthe
RevenueSheristadarisprescribedasunder:
“8(iii)TheappointingAuthorityshalladvertisethevacanciesby
itselformayinstructtheDeputyCommissionerconcernedto
advertisethevacanciesinvitingapplicationfromsuitablepersons
eligibleforappointmentinthepostofAdministrativeOfficer
fulfillingtherequirementofthepostasperclause(i)above.The
AppointingAuthorityshallobtaintheAnnualConfidentialReports
forthelastfiveconsecutiveyearsandrelevantserviceparticularsof
theeligiblecandidatesforrecruitmenttothecadreof
AdministrativeOfficerandplacetheAnnualConfidentialReports
alongwiththerelevantserviceparticularsofthecandidatesbefore
SelectionBoardwiththenumberofvacancieslikelytooccurduring
theyear.TheselectionBoardshallexaminetheA.C.Rsandservice
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page15of23
particularsofthecandidatestakingintotheconsiderationofthe
respectivemeritofthecandidatesandpreparealistofnamesin
orderofpreferenceforrecruitmenttothepost.”
14.ThelistfinallyapprovedbytheAppointingAuthorityshallbe
theselectlistforthepostofappointmentofAdministrativeOfficer.
UnderthesaidRule,thejobclassificationisalsoprovidedfor.
UnderRule8(2)(i),allrevenuemattersaretobelookedafterby
theRevenueSheristadar.
15.Fromtherecords,itisseenthattherewereasmanyas9
(nine)candidateswhohasappliedforthepost.Outofthesenine(9)
candidates,four(4)candidatesincludingthepetitionerand
respondentNo.4fulfilledthecriteriaprescribed.Theonly
controversyraisedinthepresentproceedingisinrespectofinterse
meritbetweenthepetitionerandtheprivaterespondent.Sincethe
disputeisbetweenthepetitionerandtheprivaterespondentNo.4,
onlytheirgradingsasavailablefromthestatementsintherecord
arereflectedbelow:
Nameof
Employee
GradingofACR
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019
SriUmesh
Ch.Das,Sr.
Asstt.
1/04/2014to
31/3/2015
(Good)
01/04/2015to
03/11/2015
(VeryGood)
04/11/2015to
31/03/2016
(Good)
01/04/2016
to14/07/2016
(Good)
14/07/2016to
30/09/2016
(VeryGood)
01/10/2016to
31/03/2017
(VeryGood)
01/04/2017
to
12/10/2017
(VeryGood)
20/10/2017
to
31/03/2018
(Good)
01/04/2018
to10/1/2019
(Good)
Feb/2019to
March/2019
(VeryGood)
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page16of23
Sri
Bhubneswar
Sarma,S.A
01/04/2014
to
11/11/2014
(VeryGood)
12/11/2014
to
31/03/2015
(VeryGood)
01/04/2015to
31/03/2016
(VeryGood)
01/04/2016to
14/07/2016
(VeryGood)
14/07/2016to
31/03/2017
(VeryGood)
20/10/2017to14/01/2019
(VeryGood)
17/01/2019
to
31/07/2019
(VeryGood)
16.Theserviceparticularsavailableintherecordrevealthat
boththepetitionerandtheprivaterespondenthaveworkedunder
variousBranchesincludingRevenueBranches.
17.Insofarasthewritpetitionerisconcerned,theservice
renderedundervariousBranchesisasunder:
Sl.
No
Nameof
Incumbent
Dateof
Joining
NameofBranch Period
1 Sri
Bhubaneswar
Sarma,Jr.
Asstt.
28.08.90 AccountsBranch 28.08.90to31.12.90
2 01.01.91 LandReformsBranch 01.01.91to31.03.91
3 01.04.91 SPPLBranch 01.04.91to31.12.94
4 01.01.95 C.A.Branch 01.01.95to31.03.97
5 Sri
Bhubaneswar
Sarma,Sr.
Asstt.
01.04.94 LandAcquisition
Branch
01.04.97to30.06.04
6 01.07.2004 D.M.Branch 01.07.07to30.06.09
7 01.07.2007 LandAcquisition 01.07.07to30.06.09
8 01.07.2009 AdministrationBranch 01.07.09to30.04.11
9 01.05.2011 PersonnelBranch 01.05.11to31.08.15
10 01.09.2015 LandAcquisition
Branch
01.09.15to30.10.17
11 Sri
Bhubaneswar
Sarma,
Supervisory
Asstt.
01.11.2017 SDPLBranchand
conductofPanchayat
Election
01.11.17totilldate
LandReformsbranch,LandAcquisitionBranch,DisasterManagementBrancharerevenuebranches
Fromthechart,itisseenthatthepetitionerworked14
years2monthsintheRevenueBranch.
18.Similarly,insofarastherespondentNo.4isconcerned,the
serviceparticularsavailablefromtherecordsareasunder:
SL OrderNo.&Date Branch FromDate ToDate Period
1 NPE-3/92/164Dt.
19.12.95
ReliefBranch 04.04.1990 19.12.1995 15.08.05
2 NPE-33/92/50Dt.
20.12.95
PersonnelBn 20.12.95 22.01.97 02.01.01
3. NPE-26/96/158
Dt.22.01.97
CircleRevenue 23.01.97 13.03.2000 20.01.03
4 NPE-5/96Dt. ExciseBr. 14.03.2000 14.03.2001 00.00.01
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page17of23
07.03.2000
5 NPE-5/96/297.A
Dt.01.03.2001
PubN/bDev.
Block,Diphu
15.03.01 04.03.06 19.11.04
6 NPE-2/2002/62
Dt.27.02.06
Circle(Rev)
N/b
15.03.06 10.04.08 05.01.02
7 NPE-3/2008/9-10
Dt.29.03.2008
LoanBranch 11.04.2008 14.10.09 03.06.01
8 NPE-6/05-09/126
Dt.12.10.09
SubRegistrar,
Nalbari
15.10.09 14.03.11 29.04.01
9 NPE-3/2008/164-A
Dt.10.03.11
Circle(Rev)
Nalbari
15.03.2011 04.06.11 09.02.00
10 NPE-22/2001/53-A
Dt.17.08.20
AccountBranch 05.06.11 30.08.2012 25.02.01
11 NPE-12/2001/39
Dt.30.08.2012
RKGBranch 31.8.12 Tilltoday 11.10.06
ReliefBranch,Circle,RKGBranch,LoanBranch,Sub-RegistrarareRevenueBranches
Fromtheabove,itisseenthattherespondentNo.4has
workedmorethan21yearsintheRevenueBranches.
19.ThequestionwhichconfrontstheCourtnowiswhether
comparisonofintersemeritsbyACRsandotherservice
particularscanbeheldtobesufficientbasisfordeterminingthe
meritoftheselectedcandidate.Admittedly,nomarkingshave
beenissuedduringtheselectionprocess.Itisalsonotindispute
thattheRulesdonotprescribeawardofmarksduringtheprocess
ofselection.ThecircularofthePersonnelDepartmentstatedto
beavailablehasalsonotbeenplacedbeforetheCourtbythe
learnedcounselforthepetitioner.Existenceofsuchacircularis
alsonotadmittedbytherespondentdepartment.Thereisno
malafideallegedagainstalloranyoftheofficer/Membersofthe
selectioncommitteeortheAppointingAuthority,saveandexcept
thatduringtheprocessoftheselection,anS.O.authorizedbythe
Secretary,DepartmentofGADwasamemberoftheSelection
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page18of23
committeerepresentingtheSecretary,DepartmentofGAD,
GovernmentofAssam.
20.Thechallengeinthepresentwritpetitionismadeprimarily
thattherewasnoassessmentofintersemeritsandthatproper
markswerenotawardedwhilecomparingtheintersemeritofthe
candidates.TheRulesareverycategoricalwhereitprovidesthat
theselectionshallbeonthebasisofthegradingsintheACRand
otherrelevantmaterials.Theselectioncommitteewhile
consideringthematerialsbesidestheACRshadalsotakeninto
account,thenumberofyearsofexperienceduringtheirservice
periodintheRevenueBranch.Thisassessmentmadebythe
selectioncommitteecannotbefaultedwithinviewofthefactthat
underRule8oftheRuleof1967,allrevenuemattersarerequired
tobelookedafterbytheRevenueSheristadar.Therefore,itisa
requirementundertheRulethatthecandidatesmustbeexposed
torevenueworkduringtheirserviceperiodwhichtheyhave
renderedundertheDeputyCommissioner’sEstablishment.
21.Uponcarefulexaminationoftherecordsandthematerials
availabletherein,itisseenthattherespondentNo.4had
rendered21yearsinRevenueBranchascomparedtothewrit
petitioner.Whetherthisisavalidcriteriaoranessentialcriteriais
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page19of23
notforawritCourttodecide.Itisfortheemployertodecidethe
criteriafordecidingasuitablecandidate.
22.FromtheRules,itisevidentthatthecriteriaprescribed
undertheRulesforselectionisthattheSelection
Board/CommitteewillexaminetheACRsandtheservice
particularstakingintoconsiderationrespectivemeritofthe
candidates.ItisalsoevidentfromRule8(2)(i)thatallrevenue
mattersarerequiredtobelookedafterbytheRevenue
Sheristadar.Undersuchcircumstances,thecriteriaadoptedby
theSelectionCommitteetolookintothenumbersofyearsof
servicerenderedbyeachofthecandidatesintheRevenueBranch
ofaDeputyCommissionerEstablishment,isacriteriaadoptedby
theSelectionCommitteewhichisnotspecificallyprovidedfor
undertheRules.However,consideringthemandateofRule
8(2)(i),adoptionofsuchacriteriacannotbefaultedwithifthe
departmentconsidersittobeanecessaryrequirement.
23.AwritCourtwhileexercisingitspowersunderArticle226of
theConstitutionisnotrequiredtositanappealoverthedecision
oftheSelectionCommittee.ThepoweroftheWritCourtunder
Article226isonlytoensurethattheauthoritiesconcernedact
lawfullyandaspertheprovisionsoflawasprescribed.Thewrit
CourtinexerciseofitspowersunderArticle226isrequiredto
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page20of23
examineastowhetheranyarbitrarinesshadcreptinintothe
decisionmakingprocessorthatthedecisionarrivedatiscontrary
totheprovisionsofthelawand/ortheRulesorthatany
requirementofnaturaljusticehasbeenviolated.AwritCourtis
notconcernedwiththedecisionarrivedatbyanyauthoritybut
withthemannerastohowthedecisionhasbeenarrivedat.
Therefore,itisnotopenforawritCourtwhileexercisingits
jurisdictionunderArticle226toembarkonanyenquiryregarding
intersemeritsofthecandidates.Thecriteriaadoptedof
examiningthenumberofyearsofexperienceundertheRevenue
BranchisacriteriaadoptedbytheSelectionCommitteewhich
appearstobeanecessitytosatisfytherequirementprescribed
undertheRule8(2)(i).
24.NomalicehasbeenallegedagainstanyoftheMembersof
theSelectionCommittee.ThereisnocontentionthattheRulesof
naturaljusticerequiredtobefollowedhavenotbeenfollowed.
ThecontentionofthepetitionerthattheSecretaryoftheGeneral
AdministrationDepartmentwhowastheChairmanofthe
CommitteewasrepresentedbyaSectionOfficerandtherefore,
theConstitutionoftheSelectionCommitteewasnotasperthe
prescriptionoftheRulesandconsequentlytheselectionprocess
undertakenbythesaidSelectionCommitteeisvitiatedneedsto
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page21of23
beexaminedinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasealsodoes
nothaveanymerits.TheSelectionCommitteeisprescribedunder
Rule8(2)comprisingofCommissionerandSecretarytothe
GovernmentofAssamoftheGeneralAdministration(B)
Departmentandinhisabsence,theSecretaryofthesaid
DepartmentastheChairman,Commissioneroftheconcerned
divisionandDeputyCommissioneroftheconcerneddistrict
respectivelyaremembersandtheJointSecretaryorinhis
absencetheDeputySecretarytotheGovernmentofAssam,
GeneralAdministration(B)DepartmentistheMemberSecretary.
TheRuleshowever,donotprescribeanyquorumforthemeeting.
Intheabsenceofsuchaquorumbeingprescribedorinthe
absenceofanyprescriptionundertheRulesthatabsenceofthe
Chairmanwillvitiatetheproceedingsthatnoproceedingscanbe
heldwithoutthemembersbeingpresent,thecontentionofthe
writpetitionercannotbeaccepted.InIshwarChandraVs.
SatyanarayanSinha,reportedin(1972)3SCC383,inthecontext
ofarecommendationmadeforappointmentoftheVice
ChancelloroftheUniversity,theApexCourtheldthatwherethere
isnoprovisionforquorumandoutoftwomembersofthe
Committeeonewasabsent,themeetingwouldbeconsideredto
bevalidandonthatcounttheproceedingscannotbeheldtobe
W.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page22of23
invalid.TheApexCourtheldthatwherethereisnoRuleor
Regulationforfixingthequorum,thepresenceofthemajorityof
theMemberswouldconstituteitasavalidmeeting.Thatapart,
thepetitioneralsohasnotbeenabletoshowthatthe
representationoftheChairmanofthesaidcommitteebythe
SectionOfficerinthemeetinghascausedprejudicedtothe
petitioner.
25.Asdiscussedabove,nomalicehasbeenallegedagainstany
ofthemembersoftheSelectioncommittee.TheCourtis
concernedwiththeprocessofdecisionmakingarrivedatbythe
SelectionCommitteewhichuponcarefulexaminationofthe
recordshavebeenfoundtobeundertakenkeepingtheRulesand
theProcedureinview.Althoughtheprocedureadoptedbythe
SelectionCommitteeisnotreflectedintheMinutesorinthe
counteraffidavitfiledonbehalfoftheDepartment,however,the
sameisdiscernableuponexaminationoftherecordsandalsothe
Courthasacceptedthesubmissionsmadebythelearned
StandingCounselonthebasisofinstructionsreceived.The
employerconcernedisthebestjudgeofthecriteriarequiredfor
selectingthebestmanforthejob.Thecriteriaadoptedbythe
selectioncommitteeofexaminingthenumberofyearsofservice
renderedintheRevenueBranchoverandabovetheindividual
Order downloaded on 24-12-2024 05:28:06 PMW.P(C)No.3029/2020 Page23of23
gradingsintheACRscanbeacceptedtobevalidcriteriaforthe
selectionundertaken.
26.ReferenceinthiscasemaybemadetotheJudgmentofthe
ApexCourtrenderedinDalpatAbasahebSolunkeandors.Vs.Dr.
B.S.MahajanandOrs,reportedin(1990)1SCC305,whereinthe
ApexCourtheldthatitisnotthefunctionoftheCourttohear
appealsoverthedecisionsoftheSelectionCommitteesandto
scrutinizetherelativemeritsoftheCandidates,Whethera
candidateisfitforaparticularpostornothastobedecidedby
thedulyconstitutedSelectionCommitteewhichhastheexpertise
onthesubject.Thecourthasnosuchexpertise.
27.Inviewofallthediscussionsabove,thewritpetitionfails.
TheCourtisnotinclinedtoacceptthecontentionsofthelearned
counselforthepetitioner.Thewritpetitionisaccordinglystands
dismissed.Noorderastocost.
28.Forthereasonsanddiscussionsabove,thisCourtdoesnot
findstheJudgmentsreferredtobythelearnedcounselforthe
petitionertoberelevantforthepurposesofthisproceedings.
Accordingly,thewritpetitionstandsdismissed.
29.Thedepartmentalrecordsarereturnedherewith.
JUDGE
ComparingAssistant
Legal Notes
Add a Note....