KAMPHER MARK SWER Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside of the proceedings of the Interview Committee held on 08 -07 -2014 and also the select list notified by Notification No. MPSC/D -22/2/2007 -2008/189 dated 28 -07 -2014 for appointment to the post of Sub -Divisional Public Relations Officer/Media Extension Officer.

(2.) THE concise fact of the case leading to filing of the present writ is recapitulated. By an office order No. I PR. 45/2005/75 dated 17 -12 -2009, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Relations Officer/Sub -Divisional Public Relations Officer in the Department of Information and Public Relations, Government of Meghalaya under Reg. 3(f) of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission (Limitations of Functions) Rules and was posted as Sub -Divisional Public Relations Officer, Amlarem. The term of the petitioner's appointment as Sub -Divisional Public Relations Officer had been extended from time to time by various extension orders and the petitioner is continuing to serve as Sub -Divisional Public Relations Officer, Amlarem till date.

(3.) WRITTEN examination of the candidates was conducted for 300 marks on 31 -01 -2014, wherein a total of 971 candidates appeared. It is stated that the petitioner performed exceptionally well in the written examination and scored 242 marks (out of the total of 300 marks) which was the highest marks scored by any candidate in the said written examination. The respondent No. 2 vide Notification under memo. No. MPSC/Ex -C/17/2013 -2014/67 dated 18 -06 -2014 notified that 21 candidates (including the petitioner) had qualified the written examination and were asked to appear for the personal interview on 08 -07 -2014. In the personal interview held on 08 -07 -2014, 18 (eighteen) candidates including the petitioner appeared. The Interview Board consisted of 5 (five) members. It is not known to the petitioner as to what was the total marks assigned for the personal interview and what was the marks assigned to each of the 5 (five) members of the Interview Board. It is also stated that the petitioner performed exceptionally well in the interview and answered almost all the questions asked by the members of the Interview Board. But to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner was given 8.15 marks in the personal interview as per the result of the personal interview published by the respondent No. 2. It is also stated that one member of the Interview Board had given 6 marks to the petitioner and another member had given 2 marks and the remaining three members had given 0.05 marks to the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the variation is unreasonable inasmuch as three members had given 0.05 marks, another member had given 6 marks and the marks given by the members of the Interview Board were in fractions and decimals which is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and unprecedented in a personal interview.