Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.9 to 15 at the outset contended that the selection process followed by the OSSC is fair, transparent and proper. He further contended that the Petitioner has failed to make out any case to impeach the fairness and transparency of the selection process followed by the OSSC. It was also contended that pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1 the candidates participated in the recruitment process which was conducted by an independent recruitment agency i.e. OSSC. The OSSC conducted the examination on the basis of the relevant recruitment rule as well as the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement under Annexure-1. On the basis of the assessment of inter-se merit of the candidates, who participated in the recruitment process, a final select list was published. Since, the name of the Petitioner did not find place in the final select list, being aggrieved by such fact the Petitioner has filed the present writ application. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.9 to 15 at the outset contended that having participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement and on failing to qualify in the recruitment test, the Petitioner has challenged the terms of the advertisement as well as the entire recruitment process. He further submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that she had raised any objection/ protest at the first instance. It is only after failing to qualify in the recruitment test, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

26. Mr. Routray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private-Opposite Party Nos.9 to 15 also emphatically contended that the private-Opposite Parties having been selected through a valid, fair and, transparent selection process conducted by OSSC should not be made to suffer without any mistake on the part of the private-Opposite Parties. In the aforesaid context, he also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and ors. vs. State of Chattisgarh & ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 3414, as well as in the matter of Anmol Kumar Tiwari & ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 1139. Finally, on the issue or preference and merit, learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.9 to 15 relied and referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP and others vs. Om Prakash & ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 474.

35. The counter affidavit of the Opposite Party No.4 further reveals that the advertisement was published on the basis of the requisition made by the Opposite Party No.3. Such advertisement categorically provides the educational qualification and other eligibility criteria such as additional age relaxation etc. It has also been stated that the draft advertisement was sent to the office of the Opposite Party No.3 and the Opposite Party No.3 after receiving the same, has returned the draft advertisement to the Commission vide letter dated 13.08.2020 wherein certain modifications in the draft advertisement were suggested. Thereafter, on the basis of the proposal of the Opposite Party No.3, the Opposite Party No.4 conducted a meeting on 21.08.2020 with regard to awarding of weightage mark. The counter affidavit elaborately narrates the procedure followed during the process of selection. They have also stated that the delay in the recruitment process was due to the slowdown of the process during the Covid-19 pandemic. Finally, on 09.12.2021, the Opposite Party No.4 published the advertisement inviting application from the eligible candidates. The last date of submission of application was extended on a couple of occasions taking into consideration the inconvenience faced by the candidates and to facilitate the candidates who have failed to upload their form on the online portal. It has been categorically stated in the counter affidavit that the Opposite Party No.3 has followed a fair, transparent selection process while conducting the recruitment test for the posts which were advertised under Annexure-1.

43. Indisputably, fairness and transparency is the foundational stone upon which any selection/ recruitment process is based. Observance of fairness and transparency in the selection process is drawn from Article-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, any selection/ recruitment process to remain valid in law, must stand the test and scrutiny of fairness and transparency. So far the present case is concerned, this Court has analyzed the facts as presented before this Court with regard to the observance of fairness and transparency in the selection process. On perusal of the records as well as the counter affidavit and the statements made by learned counsel appearing for the OSSC, this Court is of the view that the entire selection process was conducted under CCTV surveillance and by providing equal opportunity to the aspiring candidates. The records further reveal that the entire process of selection has been well documented. Moreover, the Petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to the process of evaluation and the marks secured by her. On a comparative analysis of the marks secured by the candidates belonging to the Petitioner's category i.e. UR (W) category, it was observed that the Petitioner has secured less marks than the three candidates whose names have been recommended for appointment by the recruiting agency. Furthermore, the petitioner has admittedly secured 4 marks less (75.5 marks) than the marks secured by the last candidate of UR (W) category i.e. 79.5 marks. It was further observed that no weightage mark has been given to any of the candidates in UR (W) category. Thus, the preparation of the final select list in no manner infringes the fairness and transparency requirement of the selection procedure.