LAWS(GAU)-2013-2-1

RAVI DAHIYA Vs. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)-CUM-IN CHARGE

Decided On February 08, 2013
Ravi Dahiya Appellant
V/S
Registrar (Judicial)-Cum-In Charge Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are filed challenging the notice dated 01.12.2011 issued by the In-Charge Recruitment Cell, Gauhati High Court, declaring the result of the recruitment process initiated for appointment to 3(three) vacant posts in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service, notifying that none has been selected for appointment, with a further prayer to declare the petitioners as selected for being recommended for appointment to the said posts, after preparing a combined merit list on the basis of the total marks obtained in the Main (Written) Examination and viva-voce test.

(2.) AN advertisement inviting applications to fill up 3(three) posts in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service by direct recruitment was issued on 18.01.2011 by the Registrar (Judicial)-cum-In-Charge Recruitment Cell of the High Court, under the provisions of Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 (in short the 2003 Rules), as amended, pursuant to which 43 candidates filed their applications seeking selection. A preliminary examination/screening test was held on 12.06.2011 at Agartala, wherein said 43(forty three) candidates appeared. The result of the preliminary examination/ screening test was declared on 24.06.2011. 17(seventeen) candidates including the petitioners were qualified for the Main (Written) Examination, which was held on 30th and 31st July, 2011 at Agartala. The result of the Main (Written) Examination was declared on 29.09.2011. 10(ten) candidates, including the petitioners, were found to have cleared the Main (Written) Examination and accordingly they were asked to appear in the viva- voce test to be held on 29.10.2011 at Guwahati. All those 10(ten) candidates accordingly appeared in the viva-voce test held on 29.10.2011, result of which was declared vide notification dated 01.12.2011 declaring that none of the candidates has been selected for appointment. Hence the present writ petitions.

(3.) MR . Choudhury, learned counsel, referring to the 2003 Rules, as amended, by Tripura Judicial Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2007, has submitted that Schedule-B to the said Rules having prescribed the detailed procedure for selection of candidates for appointment in Grade-I Tripura Judicial Service, requiring preparation of final select list by combining the cumulative grade value obtained in the written examination and viva-voce test, the select list of candidates had to be prepared on the basis of the marks secured in the written and viva-voce test. In the instant case, according to the learned counsel, though the petitioners, having duly qualified for appearing in the viva- voce test, securing more than 60% marks in the Main (Written) Examination, appeared in the viva-voce test conducted for that purpose, no select list has been prepared, which ought to have been done by combining the marks obtained in the Main (Written) Examination and viva-voce test and thereafter declare the result. Referring to the decision in All India Judges' Association & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors. reported in (2002)4 SCC 247, the learned counsel has submitted that as the Apex Court has accepted the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission's report, with the modifications indicated therein, providing that there should not be any cut-off mark in the viva-voce test, the High Court cannot introduce the cut-off mark in the viva-voce test, which must have been introduced by the High Court as the result of the selection test has not been declared by combining the marks secured in the Main (Written) Examination and the viva-voce test.