CHAITALI SIDDHANTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-51
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on April 26,2018

Chaitali Siddhanta Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And 6 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Nelson Sailo, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. CP Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N Goswami, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for the private respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 despite service of notice.
(2.) The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that she is a Master Degree holder in Arts and has completed several courses under National Civil Defense College at Nagpur. An Advertisement was floated on 03.09.2013 (Annexure-1) by the respondent No.2 inviting eligible candidates for filling up of 5 (five) posts of Assistant Deputy Controller of Civil Defense (Junior). As per the Advertisement, one post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Plain) {ST(P)}, two posts for Other Backward Class (OBC) and the remaining two posts as unreserved. The scheme of selection to the post in question was by a written test comprising of General English, General Knowledge, Test of Reasoning and Disaster Management and Civil Defense Affairs subjects with 100 marks as the total marks. On the basis of the scores obtained in the written test, the candidates were to be called for the viva-voce test carrying 15 marks. The final result would be on the total marks obtained out of 100+15=115 marks with usual provision of reservation as per rule.
(3.) The petitioner as a general category candidate, responded to the Advertisement and sat for the written test which was held on 16.01.2014. After the written test was conducted, a list of qualified candidates was prepared by the respondent authorities wherein, the petitioner was also among those qualified in the written test. The petitioner was then given a call letter dated 17.05.2014 requiring her to appear for the viva-voce test on 24.06.2014 alongwith her testimonials specified therein. On 24.06.2014, the petitioner appeared for the viva voce test and in her own assessment, she performed well and was able to answer all the questions put to her by the Selection Board correctly. The petitioner was therefore confident that she would be selected for the post. However, when the respondent authorities published the final select on 26.06.2014, to her surprise, she found herself to be not selected. The petitioner then applied for inspection of the answer scripts by filing an RTI application and upon being given the answer scripts and other documents, she found the marks obtained by the finally selected candidates including herself in both the written examination as well as viva voce test to be in close proximity. A comparison of the marks may be presented though a chart in the following manner as follows:-;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.