Gauhati High Court Aids Candidate Denied Asst Prof Appointment, Says Separate Assessments Cannot Be Made From Same Interview Process

The Gauhati High Court has recently interfered with the appointment of an Assistant Professor in the Department of Microbiology at AIIMS Guwahati on the ground that in a common interview held for the posts of Associate Professor as well as Assistant Professor, two different assessments had been made for the same candidate/petitioner. 

Petitioner had argued that, as a result of the common interview, he had obtained 67.3% marks for the senior post of Associate Professor, which was more than the respondents no 5 & 6, but for the junior post of Assistant Professor, he had been awarded marks which were lesser than both respondents no 5 & 6, resulting in them being appointed as Assistant Professors. Petitioner thus challenged the rationale behind the discrepancy in his marks for the different posts, resulting from a common interview. 

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that when there was one interview, with only one set of questions, which was participated in by both the petitioner and the respondents, who had applied to the same posts, "it is failed to be understood as to how two assessments could have been made." It opined:

If in the assessment made for the higher post of Associate Professor, the petitioner was assessed to be better than the private respondents by allotting him more marks, it cannot be reasonably conceived that for a lower post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner could be assessed as inferior to the private respondents."

The facts of the case are that an advertisement was published on October 05, 2021, for filling up of various posts in the AIIMS, Guwahati, amongst others, posts of Associate Professor and Assistant Professor in the Department of Microbiology. The petitioner had applied for both the above-mentioned posts for which a common interview was held on April 23, 2022.

Petitioner argued that although there had been a common interview held for the post of Associate Professor as well as Assistant Professor, two different assessments were made. It was argued that when there was only one interview for both posts, different assessments could not have been made and since the petitioner had secured more marks than respondents nos. 5 and 6 in the higher category of Associate Professor, they could not have been given marks more than the petitioner in the lower category of Assistant Professor, arising out of the same interview process.

AIIMS's counsel submitted that the assessment was made on subjective satisfaction and there was very little scope for interference in matters wherein subjective satisfaction was involved.

Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 and 6 raised the issue of estoppel and argued that since the petitioner had participated in the selection process without any demur, he is not permitted to challenge the same only because of the fact that he was unsuccessful in the selection process.

On hearing these submissions, the Court observed that offering appointment to respondents no. 5 and 6 for the lower post of Assistant Professor by allotting them more marks in a selection process consisting of only one interview, when the petitioner had admittedly scored more marks than them for the higher post of Associate Professor being assessed in the same interview, the appointment of the respondents and resultant deprivation of the petitioner could not be held to be justified. 

In conclusion, the Court interfered with the appointment of respondent no 6, who had scored the lowest marks in the interview process, but allowed AIIMS Guwahati to make arrangements in order to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor without disturbing the appointment of the private respondents. It held:

“Consequently, respondent no. 6 has to give way to the petitioner to be appointed as Assistant Professor in AIIMS, Guwahati. The appointment of respondent no. 6 is, accordingly interfered with and the petitioner is directed to be offered the appointment as Assistant Professor in AIIMS, Guwahati pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.10.2021. It is further directed that the appointment to the petitioner as Assistant Professor has to be given effect from the same date of appointment of the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 by giving him notional benefits. It is further made clear that in such a case, wherein the petitioner can be accommodated without disturbing the private respondents, the same would not be a precedent for any other appointments."

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 98

Case Title: Vikramjeet Dutta v. Union of India & 5 Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment