WA 314/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Judgment And Order (Oral) AMITAVA ROY , J The appellants herein, as the writ petitioners in WP(C) No.1324/2010, being aggr ieved by the determination made therein by the judgment and order dated 29.07.20 10 dismissing the writ petition, are in appeal. 02. We have heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T Dhar, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. D Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, H ealth & Family Welfare Department, Assam for the respondents. 03. The run up of facts, in short leading to the institution of the present appeal is to be sketched. The official respondents on 11.07.2008 publish ed an advertisement soliciting the participation of eligible candidates in a sel ection for admission into 3 ‰ years training course of General Nurses and Midwiv es. The appellants in response thereto offered their candidature and after the s creening of the applicants, they were short listed and accordingly participated in the interview held during 11.10.2008 to 22.10.2008. The process was conducted separately at the district headquarters. While the matter rested at that, the Director of Health Services Assam, Guwahati , by notification dated 29.07.2009 cancelled the entire process in compliance of the directions to that effect as contained in the order No. HLA-234/2008/68, da ted 21.07.2009 of the Government of Assam in the concerned department. Subsequen t thereto, a fresh advertisement was issued on 08.10.2009, inviting applications from unmarried female candidates for selection for admission to the aforementio ned course for the session 2009-2010 under the Health and Family Welfare Departm ent, Government of Assam. Apart from laying down the conditions of eligibility, it was mentioned in clear terms that those who had submitted applications earli er with the required application fees pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.07. 2008, need not deposit the fees afresh, if they wish to appear in the interview, but they would have to apply anew by obtaining a fresh application form free of cost from the Joint Director of Health Services of the District Headquarters. T he fresh process, which had been impugned by the appellants related to 912 vacan cies in the training course involved and was duly completed, following which a s elect list of the successful candidates has been published on 15.02.2010. It was thereafter, that the appellants instituted the abovementioned writ proceeding c hallenging the decision of the Government to abandon the earlier exercise initia ted on the basis of the advertisement dated 11.07.2008 being bereft of any reaso n cognizable in law. 04. The official respondents in their interim application registered as MC No. 2112/2010, pleaded that the process conducted on the basis of the adv ertisement dated 11.07.2008 suffered from incurable and vitiating anomalies, whi ch they enumerated as hereunder: - a) No Rules or Executive order for regulating the admission into GNM Training C ourse was notified before issuing of the advertisement for admission. b) District wise quota which would necessarily include reservations for SC, ST, Physically Challenged etc. was not earmarked in the advertisement. The District wise quota based on some intelligible criteria like population should have been fixed at the time of advertisement and all Districts Selection Boards should ha ve been informed accordingly. Therefore instructing the District Selection Boards to send names @ 1:4 or 1:10 to the Director of Health Services, Assam for final selection is in effect ineff ectual. c) To facilitate transparency in admission, the criteria for admission strictly on merit as per the aggregate marks in the qualifying examination i.e. 10+2 from a recognized education institute (or any specific subjects) was not followed; d) Although the Joint Director of Health Services of districts were asked to con duct the selection, no set of instructions were issued by the DHS to the Selecti on Boards. Therefore the interviews conducted by the different boards may not b e at par. Further, it is seen that the interview boards at the district level a llotted marks out of total 150 in the following breakup. 100 marks: Based on marks obtained at 10+2 level. 10 marks: Candidates passing out of Educational institutes based i n rural areas. 10 marks: Candidates whose immediate family members are not employed by th e Government. 15 marks: General Knowledge. 15 marks: General aptitude. Thus, from the above break up of marks it is evident that 33% of the total marks were based on criteria other than pure merit. Further, instead of giving 10 ma rks to persons from rural areas and to those having no family members employed u nder the Government, the selection board would have given preference to such can didates and for this preference, weightage should have been fixed by the Governm ent. 05. In addition, they contended that as a consequence, while compili ng the State Level Select List on the basis of the District Level Selection, it was practicably impossible to rationalize the performance, which had the potenti al of exposing the process to challenge on the ground of lack of transparency an d objectivity. Not only there was no well-defined criteria to allot marks on th e academic achievements, it transpired that weightage had been accorded on facto rs unrelated to merit. The State respondents therefore, asserted that to undo su ch errors and to ensure a fair, logical, objective and rational assessment of th e candidates on criteria of general application, the impugned decision was taken . According to them, the fresh process was also open for the candidates, who ha d participated in the earlier exercise and that on due completion of the new exe rcise, the select list of the successful candidates, was published on 15.02.2010 . 06. Mr. Mazumdar, has insistently argued that as the earlier process had been conducted on the basis of the norms then prevalent, there was no justi fiable reason to forsake the same and the impugned decision has been taken on co -lateral considerations to favour a selected few and thus, the learned Single Ju dge fell in error in declining to interfere. As, a public participatory process had been initiated by the Government on the basis of prescribed criteria to gov ern the same, the decision to cancel it is, per se, arbitrary and whimsical and is liable to be adjudged as such, he urged. 07. Mr. Saikia, per contra has pleaded that as the grounds on which the earlier exercise had been abandoned are germane and substantial, the impugne d decision and had been taken in the interest of credibility and authenticity of the process proposed to be undertaken and thus, mere participation of the appel lants in the earlier exercise, does not vest them with an unassailable right to claim completion thereof by any means. As the final select list of the candidat es in the earlier drill had not been published, there is no inviolable right of the appellants to claim selection for admission to the course involved. 08. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the pleadings as well as the documents on record, we are inclined to sustain the impugned action of the Government. Though, the selection process on the basis of the advertisement dated 11.07.2008 had been furthered to a substan tial extent and as the records reveal, a set of norms subsisted then as well, on a perusal thereof (the guidelines/norms), it appears that the deficiencies noti ced by the State respondents in the matter of evaluation of the comparative suit ability of the candidates and as catalogued in the above extract, cannot be brus hed aside as perfunctory, trivial or frivolous. The concerned authorities of the Government in the department involved, being the best judge of the norms of suc h evaluation, unless a decision of the kind as impugned herein, is on the face o f the record impeachable as apparently arbitrary, autocratic and whimsical, sans any trace of relevance or reason, their prerogative to decide on the criteria a s best suited for the objectives of the selection ought to be acknowledged. The guidelines in the office memorandum dated 18.07.2009 to conduct the process invo lved is obviously more elaborate and self-contained compared to the norms preval ent at the time when the first process was commenced. The contents of the aforem entioned office memorandum attend to the deficiencies underlined by the official respondents in their pleadings and lay down objective criteria on the essential segments of the comparative assessments of the candidates as required. The mate rials on record do not disclose any extraneous or irrelevant consideration guidi ng the impugned decision. 09. Noticeably, the earlier process was cancelled before it was comp leted. It is no long res integra that a candidate participating in a process, e ven if selected, has no unassailable right to claim appointment or any benefit c onsequential thereto in absolute terms. In the instant case, the new exercise is complete and a select list of the successful candidates has been published on 1 5.02.2010. There is nothing on record to indicate that the writ appellants had b een rendered disqualified to take part in the subsequent process. Indeed, it has not been argued before us as well. The learned Single Judge on a due consideration of all relevant aspects as above , has refused to interfere. On a perusal of the impugned judgment and order, we find ourselves in full agreement with the reasonings and the conclusions record ed therein. In the above view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal, which is dismis sed. No costs.