Gauhati High Court
Kishor Lahkar vs The Indian Oil Corporation And 16 Ors on 22 March, 2021
Author: Kalyan Rai Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010040472018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1223/2018
KISHOR LAHKAR
S/O. SRI MAHIDHAR LAHKAR, VILL. MURARA, P.O. RANGIA, P.S. RANGIA,
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781354
VERSUS
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND 16 ORS.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, CORPORATE OFFICE, CORE-2,7, INSTITUTIONAL
ARE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003
2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
3:THE CHIEF H.R. MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
4:THE SENIOR H.R. MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
5:THE GENERAL MANAGER (H.R.)
Page No.# 2/8
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
6:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (H.R.)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
7:RITURAJ RAJKNOWA
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
8:HIMANGSHU DAS
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
9:DIGANTA GOGOI
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
10:HIRUMONI RAJKHOWA
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
11:PALLAB HAZARIKA
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
Page No.# 3/8
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
12:TRAILLUKYA DAS
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
13:SATYAJEET SAIKIA
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
14:NABAJIT GOGOI
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
15:HARKHAJYOTI HANDIQUE
R/O. NAMRUP
P.O. NAMRUP
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
16:SUBRATA BORAH
R/O. BALIJAN
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
17:JUGAL GOHAIN
R/O. JYOTINAGAR
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM
Page No.# 4/8
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I O C
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 22-03-2021 Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Hazarika, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 to 15 and 17. None appears on call for the respondent no. 16.
2) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction for quashing the appointment of private respondent nos. 7 to 17 and for a further direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner against the unreserved quota in terms of his merit and eligibility for selection as Junior Engineering Assistant Grade-IV (Mechanical) in the establishment of the respondent no.1.
3) The facts which are not in dispute is that the Assam Oil Division of respondent no. 1 had issued advertisement dated 06.12.2017 for "Employment opportunities for Ex-Apprentices of IOCL, (AOD), Digboi Refinery for five categories of posts". The petitioner is aggrieved by appointments made only in respect of Junior Engineering Assistant Grade-IV (Mechanical). The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has specifically referred to note nos. 4 and 6 of the said advertisement, inter-alia, requiring the candidates to submit, amongst others, apprentice completion certificate latest by 13.12.2017. It is projected that after scrutiny of the application, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the written test along with 43 other candidates and the petitioner along with 15 other candidates were selected for Page No.# 5/8 the next stage of the selection process. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide notice dated 27.12.2017, the selected candidates were asked to appear in the skill test scheduled on 04.01.2018, but on appearing he found that the authorities were conducting viva-voce test instead of skill test. Although the petitioner claims to have done well in the viva-voce test, he was not called for the medical test whereas 11 other candidates were called for medical test. It is projected that the petitioner was the only general/ unreserved quota candidate amongst the 16 candidates qualifying in the first round of selection. It is projected that out of the candidates sought to be selected, the respondent no.17 was over aged and that the respondent no.16 had not submitted his apprentice completion certificate.
4) The respondent nos. 1 to 6 as well as the respondent nos. 7 to 15 and 17 have filed their respective affidavit-in-opposition. By filing affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner had taken a plea that from information provided under RTI, the petitioner came to know that he was not given marks in respect of question no. 86. It is projected that all the four options given in respect of question no. 83 were wrong. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent authorities had granted one mark to the other candidates and therefore, it is projected that if one mark is added to the petitioner, his total mark would be 51 and he would moved to sixth position in merit list and therefore, as a consequence, the status of respondent no. 8, who was appointed as a general candidate, would be relegated to that of a SC candidate and he would be shifted to his appropriate position in the SC reserved quota and that the petitioner would be entitled to be appointed in his place. By referring to the RTI reply dated 05.03.2018, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has referred to question no. 86, which is as follows:
"Which of the following is a permanent fastening?
(a) Bolts (B) Keys (C) Cotter (D) Revits". 5) Referring to the OMR answer sheet, it is submitted that the petitioner had
marked option 'C' as the correct answer. It is submitted that the word "revits" is an engineering term used for a particular programme and is a subject matter of mechanical Page No.# 6/8 engineering. It is submitted that if the word is "rivets", it would be referable towards semi- permanent fastener and not a permanent fastener. Referring to Annexure-A/1 to the affidavit- in-reply filed by the petitioner on 25.11.2019 to the additional affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 to 6, it is submitted that as per the copy of booklet annexed, "rivets" is a semi- permanent fastener. Accordingly, it is submitted that the question was wrong and, as such, he is entitled to addition of 1(one) mark for question no. 86 and consequently insofar as the respondent nos. 8 to 16 are concerned, their respective appointments liable to be interfered with and the petitioner be directed to be appointed instead.
6) Per-contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 has submitted that as per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondents, the respondent no. 8 had produced his provisional apprenticeship certificate which was accepted by the authorities.
7) By referring to the spelling of "revits" (which was used in question no. 86), it is submitted that notwithstanding that the spelling was erroneous, no grievance was raised by any other examinee. It is also submitted that the spelling was not the plea taken by the petitioner in his petition, but the same was taken up in course of filing affidavit-in-reply.
Referring to the rejoinder affidavit filed on 01.06.2020, it is submitted that as per the book relied on by the respondent authorities, being Khanna's Conventional and Objective type Questions Answers on Mechanical Engineering for Competitions, published by Khanna Publishers, the word "rivets" is shown as permanent fastener. Similarly, the learned Senior Counsel has also relied on Annexure- R/4 colly appended to the said affidavit which is a copy of a book of N.D. Bhatt on Engineering Drawing Plane and Solid Geometry wherein the word "rivets" is referred to as a permanent fastener. Accordingly, it is submitted that there was no error on part of the respondent authorities to accept "rivets" as correct answer notwithstanding that the spelling was wrong. Referring to the additional affidavit-in- opposition filed by respondent nos. 1 to 6 on 04.06.2019, it is submitted that the question papers was prepared in four sets, marked as A, B, C and D wherein the serial numbers of questions were changed so that nobody can copy from one another. It is projected that Page No.# 7/8 question no. 86 of "A" set was put as question no. 45 in "B" set, as question no. 14 in "C" Set and as question no. 57 in "D" set. It is submitted that the correct answer to the said question is option "B" and therefore, as the petitioner had answered the said question as "C", the answer of the petitioner was considered to be wrong. It is submitted that the respondent no. 8 was given question paper under "B" set and question no. 45 was answered by the said respondent as "D" and accordingly, the marks given to the respondent no. 8 did not warrant any interference.
8) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 7 to 15 and 17 has submitted that pursuant to the orders of appointment, the said respondents have already appointed in service on 23.02.2018. He is also made his submission similar to the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6.
9) In the present case in hand, the intended spelling of option "D" of question no. 86 is "rivets" and not "revits". The word "revits" is used to coordinate all data inputs (including CAD) and produce federated project deliverables. Revit and AutoCAD programmes are often used within the same firm with BIM and CAD specialists working on different elements in a project. The said meaning has no connection with the purpose of fastening element which is the intent of question no. 86. Therefore, the only conclusion is that the mistake of spelling of "rivets" would not make a dent in the question. The mistake is not found to be fatal to the question. Moreover, the book relied upon the respondent authorities refer to "rivets" as a permanent fasteners, whereas, the book relied upon by the petitioner refer to "rivets" as semi-permanent fastener. Moreover, the respondent authorities have been able to demonstrate that the question paper was set under four sets, being "A" to "D" and that respondent no. 8 had got question paper of set "B", where question no. 86 of Set "A" was set as question no. 45 of Set "B". The learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 had submitted that he has got the original OMR answer script. The Court was not inclined to assume the role of an expert examiner and therefore, the OMR answer scripts were returned. Under such circumstances, the Court is inclined to hold that if the question no. 86 is set on the basis of the book relied upon by the respondent authorities, the Court would be Page No.# 8/8 slow to substitute its opinion on the wisdom of the respondent authorities.
10) Assuming that the provisional apprentice certificate and/or the original apprentice certificate was accepted later, the said requirement cannot be held to have vitiated the selection process because in this regard, the employer has a discretion. Some aberration of the conditions by the respondent nos. 1 to 6 would not vitiate the selection of respondent no.8. In this regard, the Court has no material to hold that the note No. 4 and 6 of the employment advertisement which requiring the candidates to submit, amongst others, apprentice completion certificate latest by 13.12.2017 was a mandatory condition.
11) In this case in hand, there is no allegation on arbitrariness, corruption or malpractice by the private respondents in connivance with the respondent nos. 1 to 6. Accordingly, the examination process is not found to be vitiated. Therefore, no case is made out for interference with the appointment of the private respondent nos. 8 to 17 as the Court finds no infirmity in the marks allotted to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant