Gauhati High Court
Kishor Lahkar vs The Indian Oil Corporation And 16 Ors on 17 December, 2021
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Chief Justice, Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010136672021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/278/2021
KISHOR LAHKAR
S/O SRI MAHIDHAR LAHKAR, VILL. MURARA, P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA, DIST.
KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781354
VERSUS
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND 16 ORS.
REPRESENTED 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. PIN-786171
3:THE CHIEF H.R. MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
4:THE SENIOR H.R. MANAGER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
5:THE GENERAL MANAGER (H.R.)
Page No.# 2/8
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
6:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (H.R.)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
7:RITURAJ RAJKNOWA
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
8:HIMANGSHU DAS
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
9:DIGANTA GOGOI
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
10:HIRUMONI RAJKHOWA
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
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. PIN-786171
12:TRAILLUKYA DAS
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
13:SATYAJEET SAIKIA
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
14:NABAJIT GOGOI
JR. ENGINEER ASSTT. GRADE-IV (MECHANICAL)
INDIAN OIL CORPN. (ASSAM OIL DIVISION)
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
15:HARKHAJYOTI HANDIQUE
R/O. NAMRUP
P.O. NAMRUP
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSAM. PIN-786171
16:SUBRATA BORAH
R/O. BALIJAN
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-786171
17:JUGAL GOHAIN
R/O. JYOTINAGAR
DIGBOI
P.O. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM. PIN-78617
Page No.# 4/8
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I O C
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
17-12-2021 Sudhanshu Dhulia, C.J.
Heard Mr. AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. SN Sarma, learned senior standing counsel, Indian Oil Corporation assisted by Mr. K Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6.
2. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.03.2021 whereby the writ petition, being WP(C) 1223/2018 filed by the writ petitioner/appellant was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
Pursuant to an Advertisement dated 06.12.2017, the writ petitioner/appellant applied for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Mechanical) in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Assam Oil Division), Digboi. There were eleven posts of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Mechanical). As per the advertisement, there was a written test of two hours duration followed by Skill/Proficiency/Physical Test (SPPT) but there would be no marks for the SPPT. According to the writ petitioner/appellant, though written test was conducted, there was no SPPT instead all the candidates were asked to appear in a viva voce test in which the petitioner also appeared and according to him, he did Page No.# 5/8 well in the viva voce test but he was not selected. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner/appellant filed the writ petition.
4. As far as the case of the writ petitioner/appellant, there was no SPPT but a viva voce test was done. The selection methodology stipulated in the Advertisement dated 06.12.2017 reads as under;
"Selection Methodology:
1. Selection will be based on Written Test of 2 (two) hours duration followed by Skill/Proficiency/Physical Test (SPPT). SPPT will be of qualifying nature with no marks to be assigned.
2. Candidate securing minimum of 40% marks for Gen/OBC candidates and 35% SC/ST/PwBD against reserved positions shall qualify for SPPT. The written test shall comprise of Subject Knowledge, Reasoning ability/General Awareness.
3. Candidates who have availed of concession in Age, Eligibility qualification marks or in written test qualifying marks, will be considered against reserved vacancies, irrespective of their position in select list (in order of merit within category, However, a PWbD candidate availing of only age relaxation will be entitled to be first considered against an unreserved post, in order of merit in the select list, before being considered against a reserved post.
4. Obtaining minimum qualifying marks in the written test does not confer any right or claim by the candidate for being shortlisted for SPPT or the final selection, as the same is related to number of positions, ratio applied and relative performance in respective categories.
5. Candidates shall be shortlisted in the ratio of 1:2 for SPPT subject to securing minimum qualifying marks in the written test."
5. For the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Mechanical), the eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement dated 06.12.2017 are as under:
"3 Years full time Diploma in Mechanical Engg. (including a sandwich diploma Page No.# 6/8 course with industrial training as part of the course; with no break) with minimum of 50% marks in aggregate for General & OBC candidates & 45% in case of SC/ST/PwBD candidates against reserved/identified for PwBD positions."
6. As far as the contention of the petitioner that SPPT was not done and instead viva voice test was done and therefore, the entire selection process is flaw, is an argument which cannot be accepted. First and foremost no marks were to be allotted for SPPT. Moreover, viva voce is another method of evaluating a candidate as far as his skill and proficiency are concerned. Therefore, it may be just a change in the nomenclature. The fact remains that all the candidates who went through the selection process were subjected to the same methodology. Moreover, no mark was given for this selection. It was only of qualifying nature.
7. The other argument of the writ petitioner/appellant is that there were four sets of questions papers viz. A, B, C and D and the writ petitioner/appellant was given question paper of set A. Against the question No.86 of set A, four options were given and according to the respondent authority, the correct answer is (D), i.e. "Revits". However, according to the writ petitioner/appellant, the spelling of the word "Revits", given at option (D) is incorrect which should be "Rivets". Question No.86 of set A reads as under:
"Which of the following is a permanent fastening?
(A) Bolts (B) Keys (C) Cotter (D) Revits."
The case of the writ petitioner/appellant is that had he been given one mark more, he too would have been qualified in the selection process.
8. Though it is true that the spelling was wrong but the fact remains that Page No.# 7/8 all the candidates were given marks who had answered the said question correctly. To the said question, the petitioner had given his answer as 'C', which is not the correct answer. In fact, the answer sheets and copies were summoned by the learned Single Judge and he, too, came to the conclusion that the mistake occurred in the spelling of the word "Rivets" and that the correct answer is "Rivets", which was understood by all the candidates except the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petitioner/appellant was not liable to be given one mark for his answer.
9. The learned Single Judge in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the order dated 22.03.2011 has held as under:
"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 Page No.# 8/8 authorities, the Court would be slow to substitute its opinion on the wisdom of the respondent authorities.
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."
10. We find no occasion here to differ with the finding of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant