Gauhati High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 2015 APSC Recruitment For Lecturers In Nursing Colleges

The Gauhati High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the recruitment process initiated in the year 2015 by the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) for different posts of Lecturers in the Nursing Colleges of Assam, on the ground that said grounds of challenge structured is both legally and factually untenable.

The single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed:

“The petitioner having participated in the said selection process in the mode adopted by the advertisement without any demur will not be allowed to challenge the mode that too, on a ground which apparently appears to fallacious.”

The petitioner challenged the said recruitment process on the following two grounds:

1. violation of the reservation policy
2. the mode adopted for such selection

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that vide advertisement dated July 03, 2015, amongst the various posts advertised, there were 05 posts (02 reserved, 03 unreserved) of Lecturer in the O&G Department for which, the petitioner had applied. The petitioner who belongs to the unreserved category applied for the said posts and was issued a call letter on August 30, 2016. The petitioner appeared for the interview which was scheduled on September 05, 2016. However, in the results published, the petitioner was not amongst the selected candidates.

The petitioner's Counsel submitted that the communication towards declaration of results dated March 24, 2017 would indicate that only one general category candidate has been selected for appointment as Lecturer in O&G Department and the 4 other vacancies have been filled up by reserved category candidate.

However, as per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the APSC, it emerged that two of the selected candidates who belong to reserved category candidate have been treated as general category on account of their merits.

The petitioner's Counsel further submitted that the procedure adopted for selection is not in terms of the stipulations made in the advertisement. It was argued that as per the mode indicated in the advertisement, the selection was to be held by written test or interview and the APSC may shortlist the candidates either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying academic examination required for the post in question or by holding screening test (multiple choice objective type written examination) which would be notified.

It was submitted that none of the procedures were adopted and only on the basis of viva-voce, the selection has been done which is not as per the mode indicated in the advertisement.

On the other hand, the Senior Counsel appearing for APSC submitted that even the existing ground of challenge is, both factually and legally untenable. It was further submitted that for the 5 nos. of vacancies in the post of Lecturer O&G, the total number of applications received were 16. It was stated that the said number of 16 is even less than the number which is envisaged for maintaining a ratio of 1:6. Therefore, it was contended that there was no requirement for adopting either of the two modes for short listing and the candidates were accordingly interviewed based upon which, the selection has been made.

The APSC's Counsel further submitted that the mode of selection as such, by interview is not the subject matter of challenge as the petitioner had participated in the said selection process without any objection.

The Court noted that the first ground regarding the allegation of violation of the reservation policy has appeared to be factually untenable in view of the facts projected in the affidavit-in-opposition of the APSC that two candidates of reserved category has been appointed in the vacancy meant for unreserved category on the basis of their merits.

It was further observed by the Court that the advertisement has clearly indicated the mode of selection as written test or interview.

“The said heading further stipulates two options of short listing the number of candidates on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying academic examination or by holding screening test. It is, however, noted that either of the two options are to be exercised only when the application received is large. In the instant case, admittedly, for 5 nos. of vacancies, the total number of applications received is 16. Therefore, there was no requirement at all for adopting either of the two options and accordingly, the candidates who had applied were subjected to a viva-voce test,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court dismissed the writ petition for being the grounds of challenge structured, legally and factually untenable.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 33

Case Title: Raihana Akhtar v. The State of Assam & 7 Ors.

Case No.: WP(C)/3534/2017

Click Here To Read/Download Order