Gauhati High Court
Sanjay Dutta vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 13 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010207512016
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5997/2016
SANJAY DUTTA
S/O SHRI SATYAJIT DUTTA, SUKANATA ROAD, W/NO.2, P.O. and P.S.
LANKA, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782446
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION SEC DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL
NAGAON DISTRICT CIRCLE
ASSAM
4:THE PRINCIPAL CUM THE MEMBER SECY.
OF THE SCHOOL SELECTION COMMITTEE
NETAJI VIDYANIKETAN H.S. SCHOOL
LANKA
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782446
5:TINKU RANI DEY
ASSTT. TEACHER
NETAJI VIDYANIKETAN H.S. SCHOOL
LANKA
DIST- NAGAON
Page No.# 2/6
ASSAM
PIN-782446
6:MALAY DEY
ASSTT. TEACHER
NETAJI VIDYANIKETAN H.S. SCHOOL
LANKA
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782446
7:BIMAL DEB NATH
ASSTT. TEACHER
NETAJI VIDYANIKETAN H.S. SCHOOL
LANKA
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782446
8:MANOJ KR. PAUL
S/O MANTU CH. PAUL
W/NO.9
LANKA TOWN
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-78244
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M GOGOI, MS.N THAPA,MR.B SINHA
Advocate for the Respondent : MS.K MITRAR-8, MR B CHANDA(R-8),MR.K I MAZUMDER(R-
5,6&7)(R-4),SC, SECONDARY EDUCATION,MR.S AHMED(R- 5,6&7)(R-4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Judgment & Order Heard Shri B Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri U Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Shri B Chanda, learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/6 respondent no.8.
2. None appears for the respondent nos. 4 to 7 though an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 06.08.2019.
3. The bone of contention in this writ petition is a recruitment process for the post of Junior Assistant/LDA in the Netaji Vidyaniketan HS School in the district of Nagaon. The advertisement was published on 10.12.2015 in which, the petitioner had submitted his candidature along with other candidates, including the respondent no.
8. The selection consisted of a written examination and marks were also stipulated for type writing test and oral examination. In the results published, the respondent no. 8 was against first position securing 64 marks whereas the petitioner was in the second position securing 63 marks. As per the petitioner, the marks allotted to the respondent no. 8 in the written examination were not in accordance with law and extra marks were given for which, the respondent no.8 would steal a march over the petitioner.
4. Shri Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at least in 5 nos. of questions, marks, which were not entitled to by the respondent no. 8, were granted to him which had caused immense prejudice to the petitioner. He has also submitted that in certain questions, marks were not given to the petitioner which he had deserved resulting in lesser marks.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Q. No. 17 in which, model answer was 6.625 Kg whereas the petitioner gave the answer as 6.63 Kg. It is contended that the digits after the decimal could be made a whole number if the last digit is 5 which was accordingly done by the petitioner. He has also submitted that against Q. No. 23, the procedure adopted by the respondent no. 8 in answering was wrong and yet ½ number marks were given to him. He has also submitted that against the Q No. 13(c), which was for changing the form of narration, the respondent Page No.# 4/6 no. 8 had given an answer which was not in the model answers and therefore, marks should not have been given to him which was, however done. It is submitted that if the marks were properly evaluated, the petitioner would have been the first nominee and therefore, the appointment given to the respondent no. 8 is not accordance with law.
6. Shri Sinha, learned counsel has submitted, in the alternative that the matter of evaluation can be remitted to the authorities to do the evaluation strictly in accordance with law.
7. Shri Sarma, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the marks are given by experts and in the affidavit filed by the school authorities, proper reasons have been cited and therefore, there is no case made out for interference by this Court.
8. Shri Chanda, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 has, at the outset, pointed out that in the marks given to the petitioner in the written segment, though the total marks is 30, the petitioner is actually entitled to 29 ½ marks. In this regard, he had referred to Annexure-7 to the writ petition which is a document enclosed by the petitioner himself wherein while making the addition of the marks obtained by the petitioner ½ marks have been added to the total without any reason. On the other aspect of challenge, the learned counsel has referred to the affidavit of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed on 06.08.2019 and has submitted that the examiners have given all the reasons and justifications of the evaluation process which were undertaken. It is submitted that marks have been properly granted and no prejudice of any nature was caused to the petitioner or any other candidate. He has also highlighted that so far as the Q No. 23 is concerned, which was in the Multiple Choose Question (MCQ) pattern, the respondent no. 8 had given the right answer in spite of which, only half marks were given on the account that there was some error in the steps. He has submitted Page No.# 5/6 that since the answer is right, the respondent no. 8 is entitled to half marks more in the total.
9. The rival contentions have been duly considered and the materials on record have been carefully examined.
10. The challenge has been structured on the foundation that while evaluating the answer scripts of the petitioner vis-a-vis that of the respondent no. 8, the marks have not been properly allotted. Though such evaluations are done by experts and a writ court may not have the expertise to look into the niceties of the said aspect, a cursory glance of the documents placed on record, which are in the form of the answer scripts, would show that the contention advanced by the petitioner may not be absolutely correct. This Court has noticed that the respondent nos. 4 to 7, who are consisting of examiners, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 06.08.2019 had given adequate explanation of the marking pattern. This Court has also noticed that in evaluating the total marks of the petitioner in the written segment, ½ marks, in fact appears to have been given extra whereas his total should have been 29.5 marks.
11. On the other hand, this Court also finds force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 that so far as the Q. No. 23 is concerned, the respondent no. 8 was actually entitled to full marks which was not given as the question was of MCQ pattern.
12. Be that as it may, in absence of any gross or glaring irregularity in allotment of the marks given by experts, this Court cannot substitute the findings made by such experts. In this connection, it would be gainful to refer to the views expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this issue and one such case is UPSC Vs. M. Sathiya Priya & ors., reported in (1018) 15 SCC 796 wherein, the following observations have been Page No.# 6/6 made:
"17... Since the jurisdiction to make selection as per law is vested in the Selection Committee and as the Selection Committee members have got expertise in the matter, it is open for the Courts generally to interfere in such matters except in cases where the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness. It is the function of the Court to hear the matters before it treating them as appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committee and to scrutinise the relative merit of the candidates. The question as to whether a candidate is fit for a particular post has to be decided by the duly constituted expert body, i.e., the Selection Committee. The Courts have very limited scope of judicial review in such matters."
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant