Bhuvana Marni
Published on: October 3, 2022 at 17:47 IST
When ruling on an appeal brought by the appellant alleging an unjust rejection in the interview for the position of the driver at the Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation, the Division Bench, comprised of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh, voiced their concerns over how “favouritism” and “nepotism” were harming the government’s recruiting efforts.
“The Indian psyche is such that the subjective part of the assessment, more often than not, is tainted, influenced or guided by nepotism or the usual uncle culture or even more disagreeable extraneous considerations,” the Court said.
The appellant filed a writ appeal contesting the selection procedure used by the State’s Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation to choose two drivers.
This was done when it was noted that the petitioner in the case, who had performed better on the driving skills test in the practical tests, had lost after receiving lower marks in the interview than the other candidates.
The court noted that the interview’s records smacked of an utterly unfair technique being used, a repugnant pantomime being performed under the pretense of an interview, all semblances of neutrality being cast to the wind, and the marking procedure being wholly arbitrary.
Referring to Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the Court opined that during the selection process for employment or appointment, the merits of a candidate should be assessed and not irrelevant considerations, and stated that:
“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.”
The State Government should consider the appellant favorably in any future selection process for appointment in any category of post for which the appellant is eligible to apply, and he would be entitled to have a five-year latitude in respect of the age bar to apply for government positions, the Court opined, despite the observation that the selection process was conducted in an arbitrary manner.
The Court ordered the Chief Secretary to take action against the Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation interview board members who presided over the interview and hijacked the procedure without abiding by customary standards of fairness.
The State Government and Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation were also ordered by the Court to make a combined payment of Rs. 3 lakh in damages as a result of the victim’s unjust treatment and losing a lifetime chance to land a job that he deserved.
The State Government is free to demand the fees in full or a sizable amount from the interview panel members, the Court further stated.
Title: Pynskhemlangg Nongrang vs. Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation