SRI JYOTISH KAIBORTA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 1145 · Decided: 25-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 1145 
SRI JYOTISH KAIBORTA & ORS. 
A 
V. 
THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No.1252 of 2009 
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Service Law - Selection - For filling. up vacancies in the 
posts of Lower Division Assistant (LOA) in Transport 
Department, Government of Assam - Concerned authorities c 
prepared select list'""" High Court held the selection process to 
be unfair and improper and consequently set aside the select 
list - Propriety of - Held: Not proper - Manner in which High 
Court proceeded to examine the vafidity of the selection 
process and the reason assigned by it for holding the select 
list to be bad and invalid were unsustainable in law. 
D 
Dispute arose relating to the selections made for 
filling up the vacancies in the posts of Lower Division 
Assistant (LOA) in the Transport Department, Gov.ernment 
of Assam. The .concerned authorities had· prepared a E 
select list. The High Court by the impugned judgment held 
the selection process to be unfair and improper and 
consequently set aside the select list. Hence the present 
j. 
appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD:1. One is unable to ·appreciate or even follow 
the reason assigned by the High Court for condemning 
the select list. In case, in viva voce very high marks were 
given to ca.ndidates who secured !Ow or very low marks 
in the written test that might be a ground for suspicion. G 
~ 
:'( 
But if the candidates securing high marks in the written 
test were able to secure equally high marks in viva voce, 
one is unable to find any anomaly. After all, there has to 
be some difference between the selected and the 
1145 
H 
1146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
unselected candidates. Unfortunately the High Court has 
not mad-e clear the 'distinct pattern' it was able to discern 
from a scrutiny of the marks awarded to the candidates. 
The approach'of the High Court was quite contrary to law 
laid down by this Court. The decision of the High Court in 
B 
so far as it held the select list dated June 24, 2003 as invalid 
cannot be' sustained [Paras 17, 14] [1152-G-H; 1154-F] 
Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and 
Others (2QOB) 4 SCC 619;-Madan Lal and Others. v. State of J 
"* 
& Kand Others (1995) 3 SCC 486 and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. 
c 
State of Haryana (1985) 4 sec 417 - relied on. 
. 
. 
2. The concerned authorities are directed .to fill up 
the 12 vacancies of LDAs in the Transport Department 
from the select list dated June 24, 2003 strictly in order of 
D merit (six-from the selected candidates arid six from the 
waiting list). [Para 18] [1154-H; 1155-A] 
..._ 
Case Law Reference 
(2008) 4 sec 619 
relied on 
Para 14 
E 
· (1995) 3 SCC'486 
relied on 
Para ·16 
(1985) 4 sec 417 
relied on 
Para 16 
' -· . CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 1252 
of 2009 
~ 
F 
From the Judgement and Order dated 17.05.2006 of the 
H_on'.ble High Court of Guwahati in Civil Writ Petition No. 6139 
" of 2003, Writ ·Petition (C) No. p2_22 of 2003 and Writ Petition 
(C} No. 1554 of 2003. 
WITH 
G 
Civn Appeal No. 1253 oF 2009 
Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2009 
-\: 
~ 
P.K. Goswami, Rajiv Mahta, Parthiv Goswami, A. Henry, 
Manish Goswami (M/S Map & Co.), for the Appellants. 
H 
SRI JYOTISH KAIBORTA & ORS. V. 
1147 
THE STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 
' 
Avijit Roy, Ranjan Mazumdar (MIS Corporate Law Group), A 
(For Govt. of Assam), Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh, Sunil 
Sharma, SumitSinha, for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
AFTAB ALAM, J. 
B 
1. I.A. No.1 of 2007 is allowed and Sanjib Das who was 
arrayed in SLP (C) No.12129/2006 as one of the respondents 
4 
is permitted to be transposed as· a petitioner. Consequently, 
the number of petitioners in that case becomes eight. Apart from c 
the eight petitioners in SLP(C) No.12129/2006 there are two 
each in SLP(C) No~ 12766 of 2006 and SLP (C) No.17979 of 
2006 and two more in I .A. No.5/2009 filed in SLP (C) No. 17979/ 
2006. 
2. Leave granted in all the SLPs. · 
D 
> 
3. The three appeals are directed against the judgment 
and order dated May 17, 2006 passed by a full bench of the 
Guwahati High Court disposing of a large group of writ petitions. 
The appellants, however, are aggrieved by the decision only in 
so far as it found and held that the selections made for filling up E 
the vacancies in the posts. of Lower _Division Assistant (LOA) 
were bad and the. select list, dated June 24, 2003 was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.