Tripura High Court
Sri Pratik Modak vs The Union Of India & 3 Ors on 25 May, 2022
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP (C) No. 333 of 2021
Sri Pratik Modak
........Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India & 3 Ors.
.......Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. PK Dhar, Sr. GA.
Mr. B Majumder, Asst. SG.
Mr. D Sharma, Addl. GA.
Mr. Anujit Dey, Adv.
Ms. S Nag, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
25.05.2022
Heard Mr. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B Majumder, learned Asst. SG appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr. Anujit Dey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2, 3 & 4, Mr. D Sharma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondent No.6 and Ms. S Nag, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7.
Despite notice served properly on the remaining respondents, those respondents have preferred not to appear but the respondents No.6 & 7 have filed their reply in the matter on 15.11.2021.
The petitioner, in terms of the job advertisement No. 01/2020 dated 26.03.2020 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), applied for Page 2 of 8 the post of Programme Manager (Procurement) under the Tripura Rural Livelihood Mission, State Mission Management Union, Government of Tripura. On the said advertisement, it was clearly stated that the recruitment will be made by the selection procedure as notified by Tripura Rural Livelihood Mission vide No.F.3(51)-RD (TRLM)/2013/Part- III/742-50 dated 20.05.2017. There are various stages for selection and those have been detailed in the said advertisement. The various stages for selection [against the post] are as follows:
Post Sl No. Steps of Selection Procedure
Sl No.8 1. 1. Thematic Presentation
2. 2. Personal Interview
Sl No. 1 to 7 and 9 to 15 1. 1. Common Aptitude Test (CAT)
2. 2. Group Discussion (GD)
3. 3. Personal Interview (PI)
4. 4. Rural Attachment Test (RAT) Elaboration has been made as regards the various stages to be followed in the selection process. The petitioner was successful in other all stages, except the Rural Attachment Test (RAT), the final stage.
From the memorandum dated 23.02.2021(Annexure-10 to the writ petition) it would be apparent that none has been short-listed for appointment for the position of Programme Manager (Procurement). According to the petitioner, since he has successfully completed all the preceding stages of the recruitment, his non Page 3 of 8 selection based on the performance of the Rural Attachment Test, requires serious examination by this court.
Mr. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the Rural Attachment Test is a test whereby a candidate is given seven days rural attachment. From the memorandum dated 20.05.2017 (Annexure-C to the reply filed by the respondents No.1, 2 & 3), Mr. Dey, learned counsel has contended that from the reply filed by the respondents No.2-4 that in tuning a job profile Rural Attachment Test (RAT) is attachment for seven day in rural areas of Tripura.
All the short-listed candidate shall undergo this as part of the selection process. During the Rural Attachment Test the candidates shall have to stay in a rural poor family continuously for 07 (seven) days. The details of the field attachment test is designed in such a manner so that the candidate's empathy and working relationship with the poor, interest and understanding of the rural area, local area specific possibilities and constraints, capability to empathize, facilitate and communicate with the rural people can be assessed objectively. Field Report (FR) has to be submitted and a Presentation of about 15-20 minutes has to be made by each candidate on the field experience/findings in the debriefing to the recruitment panel. The candidates those who are found to have failed to stay 7 days continuously in rural areas shall be disqualified for further evaluation on the basis of report.
Page 4 of 8
As stated earlier, the petitioner was short listed and he was put to the Rural Attachment Test. After the Rural Attachment was complete, the petitioner was asked for his report and presentation. His performance was evaluated by the interview board having seven members. The assessment sheet of the performance of the petitioner is available at Annexure-D to the reply filed by the respondents No.2-4. For purpose of reference the entire sheet is reproduced here-under:
Scores sheet in relevant to the Rural Attachment Test (RAT) for the post of Programme Manager (Procurement) in TRLM (advt.) SN Token no. Name of the SC/ST/UR Marks obtained Marks obtained total Recommended/not candidate on report of RAT on presentation recommended (max mark 20) of RAT (max mark 30) 30393 Mr Pratik Modak UR 6 12 18 NOT 1 RECOMMENDED Sd/- Illegible Sd/- Illegible Sd/- Illegible Signature of Panelist-1 Signature of Panelist-2 Signature of Panelist-3 VIKAS SINGH, KAVITA MARIA SOUMEN BISWAS CEO, TRLM NMM, NMMU, DAY- NRP NRLM, MoRD Sd/- Illegible Sd/- Illegible Signature of Panelist-5 Sd/- Illegible Signature of Panelist-4 TARLEN DEBBARMA Signature of Panelist-6 PARAG BORUAH EXTENSION OFFICER (TW) ALOK SAHU NRP NRP Sd/- Illegible Signature of Panelist-7 SASWATA SEN JT. DIR, TWD Now, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that out of 50 marks, the petitioner has got 18 marks. Since there is no cut off marks, the petitioner ought to have been recommended and by not recommending the petitioner, the respondents have acted Page 5 of 8 arbitrarily and as such, this court should interfere in the process and deem the petitioner as successful in the recruitment test. On the basis of such inference, the respondents shall be directed to appoint the petitioner in the post of Rural Programme Manager (Procurement) under the Tripura Livelihood Nation in terms of the said advertisement No.1/2020.
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has left no stone unturned to buttress his submission. He has referred to the order dated 15.11.2020 in this writ petition where this court had occasion to observe as follows:
"After going to the reply filed by the respondents, what transpires is that since the petitioner got 18 out of 50 in the Rural Attachment Test [RAT], the petitioner has not been selected in the post of Programme Manager (Procurement) under the Rural Livelihood Nation. The relevant provisions for the Rural Attachment Test (part of the memorandum dated 20.05.2017 Annexure-C to the reply filed by the respondents), provided "no cut of marks has been postulated but the similar provisions are available for the personal interviews. Therefore, the procedure did not end by the cut off marks for the Rural Attachment Test."
In view of the above observation, the respondents had been directed to file an affidavit explaining their action by the next date. Such affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
In that affidavit, it has been stated that the mandate of Tripura Rural Livelihood Mission (TRLM) Society is the socio-economic empowerment of women belonging to the rural poor families. So it is very important to understand that a staff recruited to the TRLM has to Page 6 of 8 be very sensitive to the rural issues. The four steps of the recruitment process as followed by the TRLM Society are:
I. Common aptitude test (written test) to assess the aptitude of the incumbent.
II. The Group discussion (to understand that how the candidate perform in a group, whether he/she has the passion to listen to the problem of rural poor women).
III. Personal interview (to understand the subject knowledge) IV. Rural Attachment Test (RAT).
It has been further stated that as per the recruitment policy, TRLM Society issued a memorandum dated 20.05.2017. In the first three stages of the recruitment process, there are cut off marks because those stages are only designed to assess the general aptitudes of the candidate. They have categorically mentioned that the Rural Attachment Test [RAT] is the key component of recruitment in the TRLM, whereby it is assessed to see the candidate's empathy and working relationship with the poor, interest and understanding of the rural areas, local area specific possibilities and constraints, facilitation and communication with the rural poor people especially with women.
However, as per the recruitment policy of TRLM Society, from the RAT maximum three times of the post (category wise) shall be short listed in order to prepare the merit list. The petitioner was the only candidate who was short listed for Rural Attachment Test [RAT] for the Page 7 of 8 position of Programme Manager (Procurement) and as per the interview Board, the petitioner was not found suitable based on RAT.
If the reply filed by the respondent No.6, the memorandum dated 20.05.2017 has been annexed as Annexure-R/2. All the stages for the recruitment test, as noted, have been quite succinctly provided in the said memorandum and this court finds that there is no allegation about the first three stages of the recruitment process from the petitioner. His grievance is only in respect of the Rural Attachment Test [RAT].
Solely on the basis of the result of RAT, the final merit list is prepared. As stated earlier, the RAT has been designed to assess the empathy and capacity to interact with the rural people and understand the specific possibilities and the constraints in their empowerment. A candidate who is given the rural attachment for purpose of test and evaluation of a report. The performance on the both counts will be assessed under 50 marks. As stated earlier, the petitioner got 18 marks. Admitted by, there is no cut off marks. If there were cut off marks and the petitioner got the cut off marks, then definitely the situation would be been otherwise. But if there is no cut off marks, the opinion of the interview board will prevail unless that is grossly perverse. The presentation is made before the members of the interview board and therefore, nobody can assess the sensibility of the petitioner while presenting the particular issue or interacting with the Page 8 of 8 members of the board. 18 in comparison to 50, being total marks, for such post definitely denotes a very poor performance.
Having observed thus, this court does not find any infirmity in process and as such the relief has urged by the petitioner cannot be granted. In the result, this writ petition stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE satabdi