Gauhati High Court
Smti Mary Jonnam vs The Gauhati High Court & 6 Ors on 27 October, 2017
Author: Ujjal Bhuyan
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Paran Kumar Phukan
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND
ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Petition (C) No. 5260 OF 2013
Smti. Mary Jonnam,
Resident of D-Sector, Naharlagun,
Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
............ Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Gauhati High Court,
Through the Registrar General,
Gauhati High Court, Guwahati.
2. Registrar General,
Gauhati High Court, Guwahati,
District-Kamrup, Assam.
3. Registrar (Admn.)-cum- In Charge,
Recruitment Cell, Gauhati High Court.
4. Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
5. Secretary,
Department of Law & Judicial,
Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
6. Sri Hirendra Kashyap,
Resident of Village Sindi,
Sarthebari, District-Barpeta, Assam.
7. Sri Rajesh Sonar,
R.o. Polo Colony, Naharlagun,
P.O. & P.S.-Naharlagun,
Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh-791110.
.......... Respondents
WPC No.5260/2013 Page 1 of 14
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN For the petitioner : Mr. KN Choudhury, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. D Pangging, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. BD Goswami, Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. UK Nair, Senior Advocate, SC, Gauhati High Court, Mr. AD Choudhury, Advocate.
Dates of Hearing : 08.08.2017 & 17.08.2017.
Date of Judgment : 27.10.2017.
Judgment & Order
Ujjal Bhuyan, J
Heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D Pangging, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. UK Nair, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Gauhati High Court; Mr. AD Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and BD Goswami, learned Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh.
02. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of notification dated 17.05.2013, issued by the Registrar (Admn.)-cum-In-charge, Recruitment Cell, Gauhati High Court to the extent of recommendation of respondent No.6 for appointment to Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service; quashing of appointment of respondent No.6 to Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service vide order dated 23.07.2013 and for a direction to respondent No.2 to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service.
03. According to the petitioner, she had obtained her LLB degree from Campus Law Centre under Delhi University in the year 2006 and thereafter enrolled herself as an Advocate under the Bar Council of Delhi on 14.03.2007. After practicing for about five months, petitioner returned to Arunachal Pradesh in the last part of the WPC No.5260/2013 Page 2 of 14 year 2007 and since then, she has been practicing in the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court and its sub-ordinate courts.
04. Considering the fact that State of Arunachal Pradesh is a pre-dominantly tribal State, Government of Arunachal Pradesh in the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Training had issued a notification dated 04.05.2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 4(4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India ordering that 80% of the posts in Group 'A' under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, which are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, shall be reserved for Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (APST) candidates. A model 100 point roster indicating the points of reservation in Group 'A' posts was appended to the said notification.
05. As part of the process for separation of the Judiciary from the Executive, Governor of Arunachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India read with Article 234 thereof, in consultation with the Gauhati High Court and Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission framed the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 for regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service. Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service comprises of three grades of officers, namely, Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III. While appointment to Grade-I is by way of both lateral entry i.e., by way of direct recruitment as well as by climbing the hierarchy i.e., by way of promotion; recruitment to Grade-II is by way of promotion from the cadre of Grade-III. Recruitment to Grade-III is by way of direct recruitment. Rule 8 lays down the reservation policy and says that in case of direct recruitment, 80% of the posts would be reserved for APST candidates and 20% for un-reserved and in the case of promotion, 50% would be reserved for APST candidates and 50% for un-reserved.
06. Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench issued an advertisement dated 20.02.2013, inviting applications from eligible Advocates for filling up 5 vacant posts in Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service (to be created by Arunachal Pradesh Government shortly). Eligibility criteria pertaining to age, educational qualification, experience etc., were mentioned in the advertisement. It was further WPC No.5260/2013 Page 3 of 14 provided that 80% of the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment were reserved for candidates belonging to APST and the remaining 20% of the posts were to be filled up from the general category candidates. It was clarified that out of the 5 advertised posts, 4 were reserved for APST and 1 for general category. It was mentioned that the advertised vacancies were newly created posts. The schedule of the recruitment process was mentioned in the advertisement.
07. According to the petitioner, being eligible and interested, she responded to the said advertisement and appeared in the written examination where she qualified when the results of the written examination were declared on 04.05.2013. She was thereafter called to appear in the interview scheduled on 09.05.2013 in the precincts of the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati. Petitioner accordingly appeared before the Interview Board and according to her, she had performed reasonably well and was expecting her selection.
08. Finally, result was declared on 17.05.2013 provisionally recommending 5 candidates in order of merit for appointment, including respondent No.6 at Sl. No.2; further recommending 2 candidates, including petitioner at Sl. No.2, in the waiting list. The recommended candidates were as under: -
Sl. Nos. Roll Nos. Names Category
1. 108 Sri Tageng Padoh APST
2. 84 Sri Hirendra Kashyap (Respondent No.6) General
3. 24 Sri Tage Halley APST
4. 33 Sri Komjum Tasso APST
5. 75 Sri Tadu Tamang APST
09. The two wait listed candidates were as under: -
Sl. Nos. Roll Nos. Names Category
1. 141 Sri Rajesh Sonar (Respondent No.7) General
2. 19 Smti. Mary Jonnam (Petitioner) APST
WPC No.5260/2013 Page 4 of 14
10. Petitioner submitted a representation dated 21.05.2013 before the Registrar General, Gauhati High Court against the manner in which the notification dated 17.05.2013 was sought to be implemented. In particular, objection was raised regarding the proposed appointment of respondent No.6 as a general category candidate who was placed at Sl. No.2 in order of merit. It was contended that against the 5 advertised vacancies, 5 candidates were selected. The candidate at Sl. No.1 belonged to APST whereas, the candidate at Sl. No.2 belonged to the general category. The remaining 3 candidates belonged to APST. The candidate at Sl. No.1 was required to be appointed against the 20% quota earmarked for open competition as general category candidate. The remaining 4 posts would thereafter be earmarked for APST. Respondent No.6 and the candidate at Sl. No.1 in the waiting list being from the general category, they were not entitled to be appointed against the remaining 4 vacancies, which were earmarked for APST. Besides the 3 APST selected candidates, petitioner was the last APST candidate in the waiting list. Therefore, she contended that she should be offered appointment as APST candidate in the 80% category. In this connection, petitioner relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Soilen Phukan , reported in 2007 (4) GLT 321.
11. Petitioner was informed by the Registrar (Admn.)-cum- In-Charge, Recruitment Cell, Gauhati High Court vide letter dated 30.05.2013 that Gauhati High Court had duly considered her representation and was pleased to reject the same.
12. Following submission of application by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, certain information were furnished to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.), Gauhati High Court. She was also informed that consequential appointment order dated 23.07.2013 was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh appointing the 5 recommended candidates, including respondent No.6 at Sl. No.2, to the post of Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service.
13. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.
WPC No.5260/2013 Page 5 of 1414. Contention of the petitioner is that 80% of the advertised posts were earmarked for APST and the remaining 20% for general category, meaning thereby that the 20% should be treated as open category and not exclusively reserved for general category. In the 20% open category, both general category candidates and APST candidates could compete. By applying the above ratio, out of the 5 advertised vacancies, 4 were reserved for APST and 1 for un-reserved. Amongst five candidates in the select list, the candidate at Sl. No.1 being an APST candidate, made it on merit and the remaining 4 vacancies were required to be filled up exclusively by APST candidates on the basis of their inter-se merit against the reserved quota of 80%. Since this was not followed, impugned recommendation and appointment of respondent No.6 is legally unsustainable and consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. Petitioner being the fourth APST candidate in order of merit, she is entitled to be appointed against the fourth vacancy earmarked for APST.
15. Notice in this case was issued on 12.09.2013 whereafter the case was admitted for hearing on 05.05.2014.
16. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 i.e., Gauhati High Court and its officials have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that performance of the petitioner in the selection process did not justify her placement in the select list on merit. As per her merit, she was placed at Sl. No.2 in the waiting list. Referring to the prevailing reservation policy of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, it is stated that respondent No.6, who was placed in the second position in order of merit, was recommended against roster point No.5. Sri Rajesh Sonar was placed at Sl. No.1 as per his merit in the waiting list and in the event of respondent No.6 refusing appointment, it was Sri Rajesh Sonar who would have been recommended for appointment in Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service and not the petitioner as claimed by her. Elaborating further, it is stated that as per reservation policy of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the first four roster points have to be filled up by reckoning the inter-se merit of the APST candidates and then against the next roster point i.e., roster point No.5, the candidate in the select list on merit would have to be appointed. After appointing the APST candidates in the WPC No.5260/2013 Page 6 of 14 first four roster points i.e., by the candidates at Sl. Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5, respondent No.6 at Sl. No.2 in the merit list was considered and thereafter appointed against roster point No.5 which, as per the roster, is earmarked for un-reserved category. The decision in the case of Soilen Phukan (supra) was duly taken into consideration while making the appointments.
17. Petitioner in her re-joinder affidavit while contesting the contention of the Gauhati High Court has reiterated the statements made in the writ petition. It is contended that the 5th point roster earmarked as un-reserved cannot be treated as reserved for general category candidates. 20% of 5 posts amounted to 1 post, which was earmarked for unreserved category and this post was filled up by Sri Tageng Padoh on the basis of merit having topped the examination. A reserved category candidate can compete for unreserved post and in the event of his appointment to such posts, he cannot be treated as a reserved category candidate for working out the percentage of reservation. Reference has also been made to other selection process undertaken by the State of Arunachal Pradesh to highlight the character of 80:20 ratio of reservation in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
18. Thereafter, petitioner also filed an additional-affidavit wherein, she has brought on record recruitment process relating to filling up of various vacancies in the sub-ordinate court establishments in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, including 13 vacancies in the post of Sheristadars. It is the contention of the petitioner that out of 13 vacancies, 2 were earmarked for unreserved category and 11 were exclusively reserved for APST by applying the 80:20 ratio. Though there were two general category candidates within the 13 recommended candidates, being Sri Proshanta Purkayastha at Sl. No.6 and Sri Biju Saikia at Sl. No.8, they were not appointed but two APST candidates were appointed against the unreserved roster points.
19. Respondent No.6 in his affidavit-in-opposition has raised an objection to the challenge made by the petitioner to his selection and appointment by contending that having participated in the selection, it is not open to her to challenge the outcome of the said selection process. Further contention of respondent No.6 is that if the submission of the petitioner is accepted, it would result in 100 percent WPC No.5260/2013 Page 7 of 14 reservation resulting in discrimination against general category candidates; for which a numerical bench mark was mentioned in the advertisement itself. He has further contended that reservation of all posts for APST candidates would be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, inasmuch, as such reservation cannot exceed 50%. The rule of upper ceiling of reservation of 50% laid down in different judicial pronouncements is a binding rule and not a mere rule of prudence. Therefore, when the advertisement itself stated that one post was earmarked for general category, it has to be understood that it is meant for the general category candidates and cannot be treated as open category vacancy. Respondent No.6 has also contended that reservation notification dated 04.05.2001 would have no application in matters relating to appointment of Judicial Officers under Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch, as Articles 233 and 234 are not subject to any enactment by legislature. Referring to himself, respondent No.6 stated that he joined as an Advocate under the Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland etc. on 12.12.2005. He was selected for appointment to Grade-III of Assam Judicial Service and he was deputed to undergo pre- appointment training on 06.06.2012. While he was undergoing the training, he appeared in the selection process for Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service pursuant to advertisement dated 20.02.2013 after obtaining necessary permission of the Gauhati High Court. Following his selection and appointment, he joined as Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Capital Complex at Yupia on 16.01.2014 and is serving as such since then. He has stated that he has disposed of a good number of cases and as Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority had rendered commendable legal service to the needy thereby being selected as the best District Legal Services Authority in the State of Arunachal Pradesh in the year 2015.
20. In his additional-affidavit, respondent No.6 has stated that in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 2014, Gauhati High Court graded him "very good"
and found him fit for promotion to higher grade. Subsequently, vide notification dated 27.05.2016 service of the petitioner was confirmed on satisfactory completion of the probation period. However, service of the candidate at Sl. No.1 i.e., Sri Tageng Padoh has not yet been confirmed. Papum Pare District Legal Services Authority of which the respondent No.6 is the Secretary, was adjudged as WPC No.5260/2013 Page 8 of 14 the best District Legal Services Authority of the entire North Eastern Region by the National Legal Services Authority, New Delhi. In this connection, petitioner received prestigious award from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India at a function held at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi on 09.11.2016. He, therefore, submits that at this point of time, interference with his selection and appointment would be wholly unjustified and would be against the interest of Arunachal Pradesh Judiciary.
21. Elaborate submissions have been made by learned counsel for the parties on pleaded lines. Therefore, it may not be necessary to advert to the rival submissions in detail. However, the submissions so made at the Bar have received the due consideration of the Court. Records produced by the High Court Standing Counsel have been perused.
22. Before we advert to the reservation notification, it would be apposite to examine the relevant provisions of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 (2006 Rules). We have already noticed that the said Rules have been framed to regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service which comprises of Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III. Methods of recruitment to the three grades are provided in Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules. While recruitment to Grade-I is both by way of direct recruitment as well as by promotion in the ratio mentioned, entry into Grade-III is by way of direct recruitment. Recruitment to Grade-II is by way of promotion from the cadre of Grade-III selected by the High Court on the basis of the criteria indicated in Schedule-C. Eligibility criteria for such promotion is rendering of minimum 5 years of service in Grade-III. Schedule C mentions general and other criteria for promotion. In case of promotion from Grade-III to Grade-II, the criteria is seniority cum merit subject to overall suitability. ACRs of last five years would be considered and officers having minimum two 'good' gradings in the ACRs would be considered for promotion provided there is no doubt as to their integrity and character. Rule 8 of the 2006 Rules provides for reservation. It says that for direct recruitment, there would be 80% reservation for APST candidates and 20% for unreserved. For promotion, there would be 50% reservation for APST candidates and 50% for unreserved.
WPC No.5260/2013 Page 9 of 1423. Therefore, going by the 2006 Rules, Grade-II is a promotional cadre, promotion being from the cadre of Grade-III; for such promotion, an officer in Grade-III must have rendered minimum 5 years of service and must have minimum two 'good' gradings in the last 5 years. Promotion is on the basis of seniority-cum-merit subject to overall suitability. As per the reservation principle provided in Rule 8, since it is a promotional cadre, 50% would be reserved for APST candidates and 50% for unreserved.
24. Having noticed the above, let us now examine the advertisement dated 20.02.2013. This advertisement was for 5 vacant posts in Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service. On going through the advertisement, it appears that the process contained two stages; written examination of four papers, namely, English, General Knowledge, Law Paper-I and Law Paper-II, each of 100 marks and viva- voce. Those candidates who qualified in the written examination would be called for the viva-voce, which would be of 70 marks. It was clarified that for general category candidates, qualifying marks in the written examination was 60% whereas, it was 50% for APST candidates. Therefore, it is apparent that this advertisement proposed direct recruitment to 5 vacant posts in Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service. It was also provided that 80% of the posts advertised were reserved for APST candidates and remaining 20% for general category candidates. In other words, 4 out of 5 advertised vacancies in Grade-II were reserved for APST candidates and 1 for general category. Lastly, it was mentioned in the advertisement that the advertised posts were newly created.
25. Therefore, it is evident that the method of recruitment which was proposed by way of advertisement dated 20.02.2013 was direct recruitment in contradistinction to promotion as provided under the 2006 Rules. However, we have to bear in mind that separation of Judiciary from the Executive is a very recent phenomenon in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Though the 2006 Rules were framed, only a few posts in Grade-I and Grade-III were created and as per the 2006 Rules, those were filled up by way of direct recruitment. As per the 2006 Rules, Grade-II posts were required to be filled up only by way of promotion from Grade-III subject to fulfillment of the relevant criteria. But those appointed in Grade-III had not attained the eligibility for promotion to Grade-II. As such, there WPC No.5260/2013 Page 10 of 14 was no possibility of filling up Grade-II posts in the near future. Grade-II posts, such as Chief Judicial Magistrate and Senior Civil Judge, are extremely crucial for administration of justice. In the absence of incumbents holding such posts, administration of justice was severely affected in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore, Registry of the High Court put up a note before the Committee of Judges for recruitment of Judicial Officers, including promotion of Judicial Officers of all States within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court that, as there were no eligible Judicial Officers in the feeder cadre of Grade-III of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service who may be considered for promotion to Grade-II, to overcome the hardship, submitting proposal to initiate the process of recruitment to fill up 5 posts in Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service to be created by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh shortly by way of direct recruitment by holding competitive examination. This was approved by the Committee of Judges whereafter, the advertisement dated 20.02.2013 was issued.
26. As such the deviation noticed in the advertisement dated 20.02.2013 regarding method of recruitment to Grade-II of Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service was an outcome of a conscious decision taken by the High Court to overcome the difficulty of not having Grade-II Judicial Officers by filling up the 5 posts in Grade- II to be created by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh shortly through direct recruitment as in the absence of any Grade-II Judicial Officer, administration of justice in the State of Arunachal Pradesh was greatly affected. It is in this context, we have to take a realistic view of the advertisement dated 20.02.2013.
27. Coming back to the aforesaid advertisement, we find that by the time the advertisement was issued, 5 posts in Grade-II were created by the Government; thus those were the 5 posts created in Grade-II. Now the advertisement says that 80% would be filled up by APST candidates and 20% from amongst general category candidates, making the ratio 4:1, 4 for APST and 1 for general. Again, this percentage of reservation is not in accordance with the 2006 Rules which says that in case of promotion, i.e., in respect of Grade-II percentage of reservation would be 50:50 and in case of direct recruitment, it would be 80:20. Possibly, since the 5 Grade-II posts were newly created and were sought to be filled up by way of direct recruitment, reservation prescribed for direct recruitment i.e., in the ratio of WPC No.5260/2013 Page 11 of 14 80:20 was provided. Here also, a realistic view has to be taken because strictly speaking the percentage of reservation prescribed by the advertisement was not in consonance with the 2006 Rules.
28. Thus, it is evident that the selection process contemplated by the advertisement was not in accordance with the 2006 Rules. Consequently, the percentage of reservation provided in the advertisement was contrary to the 2006 Rules. But, as noticed above, this was a one off measure to overcome the unique situation. However, the key factor that we may notice from this advertisement is that these 5 posts were newly created and were the first 5 posts created in Grade- II.
29. Having noticed the 2006 Rules and the advertisement dated 20.02.2013 as above, we may now proceed to deal with the reservation notification of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh dated 04.05.2001. We are told that this notification is still holding the field. As per this notification, 80% of the posts in Group-A, which are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, shall be reserved for APST candidates. The remaining 20% are for general category. A model 100 point roster indicating the points of reservation in Group-A posts was appended to the said notification for strict compliance by all concerned. As per the model 100 point roster, every 5th point was earmarked for unreserved category. It would thus mean that roster point Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 would be reserved for APST candidates whereas, the 5th point in the roster would be earmarked for unreserved. Likewise, roster point Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 would be reserved for APST and roster point No.10 earmarked for unreserved. This would continue till the 100 point roster is exhausted. There was difference of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court as to what would be the true meaning and import of the expression 'general category' in the context of earmarking of every 5th roster point for unreserved category. Ultimately, the matter was referred to a Full Bench of this Court in State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. Soilen Phukan (supra) wherein, it was held that 20% of the posts earmarked for 'general category' candidates cannot be understood to have been exclusively earmarked for the non-APST candidates and that the same were available to be filled up by all the candidates in the fray subject to their merit as determined in the WPC No.5260/2013 Page 12 of 14 selection held. In other words, 20% category is to be treated as open category where both APST and 'general category' candidates can compete on the basis of their merit. This judgment also clarified that the 5th point in the roster earmarked as unreserved has to be treated as an open post, inasmuch as the same cannot be treated as reserved exclusively for 'general category' candidates; thus for the 5th roster point, both APST and general category candidate can compete subject to their merit in the selection.
30. Infact, the above position was clarified by the Supreme Court in the case of R K Sabharw al Vs. State of Punjab , (1995) 2 SCC 745, wherein it was held as follows: -
" When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand, the reserve category candidates can compete for the non-reserve posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts, their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation."
31. Having noticed the above position, we may now examine the claim of the petitioner in the context of the selection made. For convenience, we may prepare a list of seven short listed candidates in order of merit; five selected for the 5 notified vacancies and two kept in the waiting list : -
Sl. No. Name Category Total marks
1. Sri Tageng Padoh APST 315.50
2. Sri Hirendra Kashyap (Respondent No.6) General 315.00
3. Sri Tage Halley APST 300.75
4. Sri Komjum Tasso APST 298.25
5. Sri Tadu Tamang APST 297.25
6. Sri Rajesh Sonar (Respondent No.7) General 297.50
7. Smti. Mary Jonnam (Petitioner) APST 286.25
32. Applying the 100 point roster, the first 4 roster points i.e., 1, 2, 3 & 4 were rightly filled up by the APST candidates at Sl. Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5. In so far the 5th roster point is concerned, the judgment in State of Arunachal Pradesh Vs. WPC No.5260/2013 Page 13 of 14 Soilen Phukan (supra) has made it clear that it is an open category point where both APST and general category can compete subject to their merit in the selection. Therefore, for the 5th roster point, the competition was between the candidates at Sl. No.2, 6 & 7; 2 & 6 being general category candidates and 7 being APST category. We have already noticed that the candidate at Sl. No.2 had secured 315.00 marks as against 297.50 by the candidate at Sl. No.6 and 286.25 by the candidate at Sl. No.7. Therefore, the candidate at Sl. No.2 having secured the highest mark amongst the three competing candidates was selected and subsequently appointed against the 5th roster point earmarked for the open category.
33. We do not find any error or infirmity in the aforesaid decision of the Gauhati High Court. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the challenge made by the petitioner to the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 is wholly misconceived and is liable to be rejected. Since we have upheld the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 on the grounds mentioned above, we feel that it may not be necessary to examine the other contentions raised by respondent No.6, who in any case is not the petitioner.
34. Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. Record produced be returned. Parties to bear their own costs.
Judge Judge
BIPLAB
WPC No.5260/2013 Page 14 of 14