WP(C) 16/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr PC Dey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr GN Sahewala, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr N Anix Singh, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for sele ction to the post of Junior Fire Supervisor in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporati on Limited (in short ’ONGC’) even though he claims to have come out successfully in the written test as well as physical fitness test and physical efficiency te st on the ground that he did not have an experience of 6(six) months in one cont inuous spell. 3. The petitioner passed his higher Secondary examination in Science in the year 1999 and was engaged for acquiring knowledge of fire fighting and fire pro tection under the guidance of Fire Officer at Dergaon Fire Station for 3(three) months i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2003 to 31.03.2003 and then at Nazira Fire Station und er the guidance of Sub-Officer, Nazira Fire station for 3(three) months i.e. w. e.f. 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2006. 4. According to the petitioner, by undergoing trainings in fire fighting an d fire protection for 3(three) months on two separate occasions, he has gained a n experience of 6(six) months, for which an experience certificate have been iss ued by the competent authorities. As an educated unemployed, he registered his n ame at Nazira Employment Exchange in the year 1995 and was sponsored for the pos t of Junior Fire Supervisor in the ONGC at Nazira on the basis of the requisite qualifications and experiences obtained by him. After initial screening, he was called to appear in written test on 10.10.2010 and had duly appeared in the test . As he passed in the written test as published on 08.12.2010, he was directed t o appear for physical fitness /physical efficiency test and for personal intervi ew to be held on 14.12.2010. He appeared in all these tests on 14.12.2010 and wa s asked to produce the original educational certificates and experience certific ates for verification. He accordingly produced those certificates before the aut hority. However, the respondent authorities rejected his candidature on the grou nd already indicated earlier. This prompted him to file this writ petition for a ppropriate relief. 5. Opposing the writ petition, the respondent authorities filed their affid avit-in-opposition. The main contention of the respondent authorities in defendi ng their rejection is found at Paragraph 24 of their affidavit-in-opposition whi ch are as follows:- 24. That the contentions made in paragraphs 11 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. It is further stated that although in the letter dated 18.06. 2010, it was not specifically mentioned that six months experience should be con tinuous, but later on at the time of scrutiny of the applications and considerin g that there were sufficient number of candidates who were having continuous exp erience, the competent authority took the decision to accept the candidature of only those candidates who were possessing the experience in Fire Service in one continuous spell of six months, which is in accordance with the powers conferred upon the appointing authority under Regulation 6(3) of the ONGC MRPR 1980. Henc e the decision of the competent authority in this regard is neither illegal, arb itrary or unfair as alleged . 6. It is the contention of Mr PC Dey, the learned counsel for the petitione r that as per the advertisement, the criteria mentioned herein was 6(six) months experience in fire service and there was nothing in the advertisement which sti pulated that the period of 6(six) months should be a continuous spell of 6(six) months and that as he has an experience of 3(three) months plus 3(three) months which is equalled to 6(six) months of experience from two fire stations, the rej ection of his candidature is arbitrary and illegal and is in contravention of th e advertisement. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the responden ts draw my attention to the application filed by the petitioner which is at Anne xure-V and he submits that the petitioner was aware of the fact that he was not qualified for the post, and as such has no legitimate grievance to make for chal lenging the rejection of his candidature. He also draws my attention to the und ertaking dated 14.12.2010 signed by him which plainly indicated therein that as he did not possess experience in fire service for a period of 6(six) months or m ore at a stretch / in one spell, he did not meet the requirement for the post of Junior Fire Supervisor. The learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is true that the advertisement, did not say that an applicant for the post of Junior Fire Supervisor should have an experience of 6(six) months in on e continuous spell, but the advertisement at the same time did not also say that persons having an experience of 6(six) months at different spells is qualified to be appointed for the post. 8. The view taken by the respondent authorities as adumbrated earlier is th at at the time of scrutinizing the applications, it was found that there was suf ficient number of candidates having continuous experience of 6(six) months and a s such the competent authority took the decision to accept only those candidates who have experienced in fire service in one continuous spell of 6(six) months. 9. In my opinion, no illegality or irrationality or arbitrariness is commit ted by the respondent authorities in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he did not have an experience of 6(six) months at a continuo us spell. In Tata Cellular V. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11, the scope of judi cial review was firmly laid down by the Apex Court and the relevant paragraphs o f the Judgment are found at Paragraphs 94 and 95 of the Judgment which read as follows:- 94. Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particula r policy or particular decision taken in the fulilment of that policy is fair. I t is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. Th e extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial r eview can be classified as under: (i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correc tly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. 95. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addit ion of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretar y of state for the Home Department ex parte Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the Court should consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degre e which requires its intervention . 10. The respondent authorities in their wisdom have taken the view that as t here are candidates who have an experience of 6(six) months in a continuous spel l, the petitioner who does not possess a certificate of 6(six) months continuous spell should not be selected for the post. In my opinion, the view taken by the respondent authorities is a possible view and also a rational view. If the view taken by the respondent authorities is a possible view or, rather, a rational v iew, it is not the business of this Court to substitute its view, on the ground that the other view is a better view. No illegality or procedural impropriety ca n be shown to exist in the impugned decision. 11. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground for interference in th e impugned order. In the result, this writ petition which has no merit, is, ther efore, dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs.