PYNSKHEMLANG NONGRANG Vs. DIRECTORATE OF SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that pursuant to an advertisement dtd. 16/12/2020, advertising for filling up of two posts of Driver in the Office of the respondent No. 1, the petitioner had applied, taken part in the selection process and was ranked 1st in the Practical Test and qualified for the interview. However, he did not come out successful after the final results, and the appointment was made in favour of the respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court primarily on the ground that he was the best suited candidate as he had secured the 1st position in the Driving Test and that undue consideration was given to the performance in the interview, which had resulted in his being deprived of gainful employment.

(2.) Mr. S.R. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the weightage of marks given to the interview is unreasonable as the same, as per the RTI reply received dtd. 14/4/2021, showed that it was in the ratio of 50:50. He further submits that the advertisement did not reveal the Rules under which the selection was to be done and has also assailed the manner in which the selection was conducted. In support of his arguments the learned counsel has place reliance in the cases of Renu and Ors vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Anr. reported in 2014 14 SCC 50 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. vs. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and Ors. reported in AIR 2002 SC 224 : 2001 AIR SCW 4885.

(3.) Mr. H. Abraham, learned GA for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that no case has been made out for any interference, inasmuch as, the selection process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. He submits that 70 marks out of 100, was fixed as the cut-off marks in the Driving Test to qualify for the interview and though the petitioner secured 84 out of 100 in the Driving Test, he however scored only 60 out of 100 in the personal interview, whereas the respondent No. 3 scored 70/100 and 87/100 respectively, thus scoring more than the petitioner in total. He further submits that the selection was as per the criteria prescribed by the Departmental Selection Committee dtd. 5/2/2021, before the selection was set in motion. As such, he submits there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.