SHILLONG, Sep 23: The High Court of Meghalaya has raised its concern over the process of selection in recruitment to state government posts being affected by “favouritism and nepotism”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W Diengdoh was hearing an appeal moved by a candidate who was declared unsuccessful in the selection process of the Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation for appointment of drivers.
The bench perceived that the appellant had secured the highest mark of 84 in the practical examination which tested the candidates’ driving skills. However, some other candidates who barely met the qualifying marks to be called for the interview obtained exceptionally high marks in course of the interview to topple, inter alia, the appellant herein and bag the posts.
It was noted by the bench that there were six interviewers who had to evaluate the candidates. Out of the total 100 marks, each interviewer could allot a maximum of 16.66 marks to any candidate, but the court observed that two interviewers had exceeded this limit.
Thus, on the combined strength of the liberal manner in which the ultimate successful candidates were marked by the interviewers and the much less marks awarded to the appellant herein in the interview, the advantage of the 14 marks that the appellant enjoyed, at the time of entering the interview room, was whittled down and overhauled, the bench stated.
It remarked that records reveal that a completely arbitrary and unfair procedure was adopted at the interview unbecoming of any respectable or acceptable selection process.
Recounting Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice observed, “The overwhelming message conveyed by Article 16 of the Constitution, as it keeps close company with Articles 14 and 15, is that in the selection process pertaining to employment or appointment, irrelevant considerations must not come into play. Of course, the merits of a candidate will be assessed so that most suitable for the post is identified. But just as religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence are to be kept out of the consideration, favouritism and nepotism would also have no role to play in the process of selection. At the end of the day it has to be a fair process and a reasonable procedure adopted for the selection; or it would fall foul of the constitutional ethos.” All things considered, the court felt that the appellant may not be entitled to obtain the cherished relief on the basis of the things as they stand today, but since it is evident that the appellant has been unfairly treated by the state, the appellant will be considered favourably in any future selection process for appointment in any category for which the appellant is eligible to apply.
In the event the appellant does not obtain any government job before the age bar comes into operation, as a result of the wrong done by the respondent authorities to the appellant, the appellant will be entitled to a five-year latitude in respect of the age bar to be entitled to apply for government positions or in the State public sector undertakings, the bench declared.
The bench also directed that the matter be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary to the state for it to be reported to the appropriate vigilance authorities for taking action against the members who conducted the interview and “hijacked a process without any adherence to ordinary norms of fairness”.
“The appropriate department of the state should undertake an awareness drive and educate the persons who would be involved in the future selection processes as to the present norms, including the weightage to be given to the skill or the objective test and the weightage to be given to the interview. It must be remembered at the end of the day that a driver may not be judged in how he dresses or how he looks but in how he manoeuvres the machine that is entrusted to him,” the bench stated.
Moreover, the court ordered that the state and the concerned prospective employer will pay damages by way of costs assessed at Rs 3 lakh and such costs have to be paid within three months, failing which it will carry simple interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the expiry of three months from date.
The bench suggested that it will be open to the state to extract the costs or a substantial portion thereof from the members of the interview board.
