Gauhati High Court
Mrs. Archita Bhattacharyya vs State Level Eligibility Test ... on 22 April, 2019
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010026822013
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 3850/2013
1:MRS. ARCHITA BHATTACHARYYA
W/O MR. MRINMOY DUTTA, R/O CHANDAN NAGAR, WARD NO.13, P.O. and
P.S. GOLAGHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:STATE LEVEL ELIGIBILITY TEST COMMISSION, ASSAM
ASSAM N.E. REGION, REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, SLET
COMMISSION, ASSAM, N.E. REGION, B.K.B. AUDITORIUM 2ND FLOOR,
GAUHATI UNIVERSITY, GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR, DIST- KAMRUP
METRO, ASSAM, PIN-781014
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.T J MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S DEKA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
JUDGMENT
Date : 22-04-2019 Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Deka, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2.
2) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the declaration of result of State Eligibility Test, 2012 bearing Page No.# 2/5 Notification No. SLET/Result/10 dated 06.02.2013, which was conducted by the State Level Eligibility Test Commission, Assam (N.E. Region) (respondent No.1). The petitioner also seeks a direction upon the respondent No.1 for declaring result as per the Information Brochure (Annexure-A). It is projected in this writ petition that the selection criteria were changed after the test was conducted.
3) In short, the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Post Graduate Degree holder in Assamese subject. The petitioner fulfilled the requisite conditions for Appointment and Career Advancement of Teachers in Universities and Institutions affiliated to it as provided for by the University Grants Commission in her relevant subjects. It is projected that from time to time the respondent No.1 conducted State Eligibility Test (SET) to consider a candidate eligible for the post of Lecturer. In response to notification dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure-1), the petitioner appeared in the admission test held on 09.09.2012 as a General category candidate. However, when results were declared on 06.02.2013, the petitioner found herself as not selected. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that while the initial notification contained a different selection criteria, but when results were declared, a different criteria was adopted, which was "top 7% for each subject and each category", which was done after the answers were evaluated and at the time of declaring the result. It is submitted that by way of RTI reply, the petitioner was provided with a copy of the result sheet of SET, 2012 and she came to know that she had secured 52 marks in Paper-I, 66 marks in Paper-II and 122 marks in Paper-III and received minimum percentage of marks for each paper for General category candidate and, as such, the petitioner had secured 68.5% marks with qualifying marks in each subject in the said test. It is submitted that the terms and conditions of examination cannot be changed or altered after examination is over.
4) The learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to para- 2 of the recommendations made vide Minutes of the Committee of the Commission Members regarding issues pertaining to result of UGC- NET held in June, 2012 (Annexure-3; pg.13 of Affidavit- in- opposition of respondent No.1). It is submitted that the criteria could be either Page No.# 3/5 of sub-para (a) or sub-para (c) thereof. Accordingly, it is submitted that the adoption of different criteria i.e. "top 7% for each subject and each category" was arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and wholly discriminatory against the petitioner, which has resulted in denial of career progression to the petitioner.
5) Per contra, opposing this writ petition, the learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has made his oral submissions and has also submitted his written notes. By referring to the Notification No. SLET/ex/12 dated 18.04.2012, it is submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, because in the said examination notification issued by the SLET Commission, it was specifically mentioned that "... However the final qualifying criteria for eligibility of Lecturership shall be decided by the Moderation Committee before declaration of Results." It is submitted that while minimum qualifying marks were prescribed, the final qualifying criteria for eligibility of Lecturership was subject to declaration before result. Therefore, in the proceeding of the Moderation Committee Meeting of the SLET Commission held on 30.01.2013, the Agenda No.1 was to examine the Result of the SET, 2012. Accordingly, it was resolved that Prof. Surendra Singh (UGC Nominee) is to assist the Member Secretary, SLET Commission, Assam to prepare the result as per the criteria adopted by the Committee. It was further resolved that the Committee authorised the Chairman, SLET Commission, Assam to declare the result. It is submitted that the said meeting was attended by 7 (seven) academicians, viz., (1) Prof. O.K. Medhi, the Vice Chancellor of Gauhati University, (2) Prof. Surendra Singh, Member (UGC Nominee), (3) Prof. B. Bhattacharya, (Member), (4) Dr. Surender Singh (Dy. Secy., UGC-NET), (5) Dr. C.K. Gogoi (Member), (6) Dr. C.M. Sarma (Member), (7) Sri N.C. Bardaloi (Member Secretary). Subsequently, the Proceedings of the Steering Committee meeting was held on 30.01.2013, which was attended by (1) Prof. O.K. Medhi, the Vice Chancellor of Gauhati University, (2) Dr. C.M. Sarma (Retd. Professor, Member), (3) Dr. C.K. Gogoi (Member) (4) Dr. Surender Singh (Dy. Secy., UGC- NET), (5) Sri N.C. Bardaloi (Member Secretary) and Co-opted Members, viz., (1) Prof. Surendra Singh, NEHU, Shillong, (3) Prof. B. Bhattacharya, (NBU, Siliguri), wherein the Steering Committee took up the recommendation of the Moderation Committee regarding the criteria for finalisation of the result of SET, 2012 held on 09.09.2012 and after discussion Page No.# 4/5 approved the same. The Committee authorised the Member Secretary, SLET Commission, Assam to work out the result on the basis of approved criteria and declare the result with the approval of the Chairman, SLET Commission, Assam. The Committee further entrusted Prof. Surendra Singh of NEHU, Shillong to assist the Member Secretary of SLET for preparation of the result. It is submitted that Dr. Surender Singh, (Dy. Secy., UGC-NET) had submitted the criteria, on the basis of which the results were worked out and declared. The said recommendation is appended as Annexure-4 to the affidavit- in- opposition filed by the respondent No.1. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the respondent No.1 has relied on the case of University Grants Commission & Anr. Vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar), (2013) 10 SCC 518: (2013) 0 Supreme(SC) 898.
6) The learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 by referring to the affidavit- in- opposition, has supported the stand taken by the respondent No.1 and it is submitted that there was no infirmity in the criteria adopted by the respondent No.1.
7) On a consideration of the submissions by the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of materials available on record, it is seen that in the case of University Grants Commission & Anr. (supra) , the provision of the National Eligibility Test Commission conducted by the UGC was assailed and the Supreme Court of India had held the criteria of 7% of the candidates in terms of mark to be qualified for the purpose of NET. It was also held that the change of criteria from cut off mark to the " top 7% for each subject and each category" does not amount to a change in the rule of the game as it was already pre-mandated in the notification and accordingly, it was also held that the UGC had not acted in a arbitrary and whimsical manner against any candidate.
8) This Court finds that the ratio laid down in the said case squarely covers the fact situation in the present case in hand. Therefore, as " top 7% for each subject and each category" criterion has been approved in the case cited above, nothing survives for a fresh consideration by this Court in the present case in hand. Moreover, it is seen that this Court by a common order dated 21.05.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 1089/2013 (Rintu Bhuyan & 8 others Vs. State Level Eligibility Test Commission, Assam) and other 4 (four) writ petitions, where issues Page No.# 5/5 similar to the present case was raised, had been dismissed. There are no convincing reasons for this Court to take a view contrary to one already taken by this Court in the case of Rintu Bhuyan (supra).
9) Moreover, the prayer in this writ petition is to set aside the declaration of result of State Eligibility Test, 2012 bearing Notification No. SLET/Result/10 dated 06.02.2013, which was conducted by the State Level Eligibility Test Commission, Assam (N.E. Region) (respondent No.1). However, the successful candidates, who would be adversely affected by allowing such prayers are not found to have been made parties in this writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hit by principles of non- joinder of necessary parties.
10) Accordingly, this present writ petition stands dismissed. No cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant