WP(C) 3211/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The selection and appointment of the respondent No. 3 herein, as Assistant Regis trar (General Administration) as a Schedule Tribe candidate, has been assailed i n the instant proceeding. The petitioner, who claims himself to be also a candi date of the same category complains of not being recognized as such and thus ins pite of superior merit, has been denied the appointment on extraneous considerat ions. This Court by order dated 30.07.2008 restrained the University from allow ing the respondent No. 3 to join without its leave. 2. I have heard Mr. RC Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner a nd Mr. NC Das, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. B Choudhury, Advocate for the Tez pur University (hereafter for short referred to as the ’University’). Also hear d Mr. J Chutia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 3. The petitioner’s case, in essence, is that he is a Post Graduate in Arts and is pursuing M.Phil degree at present. He has to his credit work ex perience as Lecturer in Geography in Moriani College, Jorhat for over 10 years a nd has also completed a certificate course in Geographic Information System cond ucted by the Gauhati University. Further, he has also attended the workshop org anized by the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, West Bengal and Rajib Gandh i Univeristy, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. He has introduced himself to be a me mber of the Sonawal Kachari community recognized as Scheduled Tribe by the Gover nment of Assam. 4. In response to an advertisement No. 1/08 published by the Univer sity in the issue dated 12.01.2008 of the daily, Assam Tribune, notifying two va cancies in the post of Assistant Registrar in General Administration, the petiti oner being eligible in terms of the conditions of eligibility offered his candid ature as a ST candidate. The advertisement disclosed that out of the two vacanc ies one (1) was unreserved and the other was reserved for ST candidates. The re laxations in favour of such reserved category candidates were also spelt out the rein. The petitioner and other contenders of both the streams, who were found q ualified, thereafter were allowed to take the written examination held on 07.06. 2008. Thereafter, a list of candidates successful therein, was published on 11. 06.2008, wherein seven (7) candidates in the unreserved category and eight (8) i n the reserved category were declared to have passed the written examination and thus were adjudged eligible to be called for personal interview. The list, howe ver, did not divulge the marks secured by the candidates in the written examinat ion. The petitioner, accordingly, being duly informed attended the interview on 07.07.2008. The respondent No. 3 also was called for the interview, she having passed the written examination. 5. According to the petitioner, he topped the select list drawn up by the interview Board and as per its recommendations was, thus, entitled to be appointed against the post earmarked for the ST candidates. He, however, has al leged that on the eve of the interview acting on an information chipped in by s ome vested interest out of personal grudge that he did not belong to the ST cat egory, Sri Akhil Dutta, Assistant Registrar (Establishment) Tezpur University, i ssued a letter to the President/Vice President of All Assam Tribal Sangha, Jorha t District, Assam on 02.07.2008 seeking a confidential confirmation about the ge nuineness of the petitioner’s claim as a member of the said reserved category. The petitioner has asserted that the aforementioned Sangha on receipt of the let ter replied in writing on 10.07.2008 confirming the reserved status of the petit ioner. The Sangha also dispatched it’s message to the above effect by fax to th e University on the same date. The petitioner has imputed that the Board of Man agement in its meeting held, thereafter on 14.07.2008 dropped his name from the list and selected respondent No. 3 for appointment. This the petitioner has asse verated to be unfair and unjust for not having been offered an opportunity of he aring and also arbitrary and lacking in bonafide as led by irrelevant and collat eral considerations. The petitioner’s representation before the University submi tted on 22.07.2008 not having been responded to, the petitioner, he has approach ed this Court for redress. 6. By his additional affidavit, the petitioner has affirmed that th e All Assam Tribal Sangha, on receipt of the letter from the University enquirin g about the genuineness of his Scheduled Tribe Certificate, on necessary scrutin y by its letter dated 10/7/2008 confirmed the authenticity thereof. The intervie w was, however, held before that on 7/7/2008 in course of which, as perceived by him, the members of the Interview Board seemed to have some reservations about his Scheduled Tribe status. According to the petitioner, the Interview Board in his comprehension did not treat him to be a Scheduled Tribe candidate, which adv ersely affected his prospects. 7. In its counter, the University while reiterating the facts perta ining to the advertisement, written examination and the interview as narrated by the petitioner has categorically denied the imputation of denying him the benef it of his reserved category status. While admitting that the University on 1/7/2 008 had received a letter from one Shri Jagat Khound alleging that he possesses two caste certificates, one of Scheduled Tribe and the other of Other Backward C lass, it got the matter enquired through the All Assam Tribal Sangha, Jorhat, to which a letter was addressed on 2/7/2008 seeking its comments thereon. The Univ ersity, however, insisted that the complaint did not have any bearing what so ev er on the proceedings of the Interview Board and for all practical purposes it c onstrued him to be a scheduled tribe candidate. It, however, affirmed that the r eply of the All Assam Tribal Sangha, Jorhat District, Assam, authenticating the petitioner’s scheduled tribe status was received on 9/7/2008 through Fax. The an swering respondent maintained that even before receiving that reply the petition er had been called for the interview as a scheduled tribe candidate. The Univers ity clarified that on the basis of the performance in the written examination, s even candidates of both the reserved and unreserved categories were short listed for interview. However, as three candidates belonging to the scheduled tribe ca tegory secured the same marks in the written test, the number of candidates for that category came to be eight. The Interview Board, on an analysis of all relev ant factors, however, recommended the respondent No. 3 and one Mrs. Sujata Deori for the post of Assistant Registrar reserved for the scheduled tribe candidates . On an evaluation of the petitioner’s suitability, he not having been able to m ake the mark, the Interview Board/Selection Committee did not recommend him for the post. The allegation of nepotism and extraneous considerations made by the p etitioner was stoutly denied by the University. 8. Mr. Saikia has argued that having regard to the performance of t he petitioner in the written examination and the interview, he ought to have bee n selected for the post on a consideration of his reserved category status and t he recommendation to the contrary is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary. According t o the learned Counsel, the move to question the petitioner’s reserved category s tatus was for the collateral purpose of wrongfully denying him the post and in a ll fairness, the University ought to have postponed the interview till the recei pt of the clarification from the All Assam Tribal Sangha, Jorhat District, on th e queries made it on the issue. Instead it proceeded with the interview pending a reply on the complaint made and under evaluated his performance nursing a ling ering suspicion against him thus illegally depriving him of the post, he urged. 9. Mr. Das in reply has emphatically refuted the above contending t hat though the University as required decided to enquire on the complaint made a gainst the petitioner, for all intents and purposes, he was through out treated to be a scheduled tribe candidate and, therefore, his misgivings are unfounded. The Interview Board not having recommended the petitioner for the post on a thor ough appraisal of his overall performance in the interview, the assertions to th e contrary are untenable and the petition is thus liable to be dismissed. In sup port of his submission, the learned Sr. Counsel for the University has produced the relevant records pertaining to the selection as a whole. 10. The competing pleadings and the arguments advanced have received the due consideration of this court. Admittedly both the petitioner and the res pondent No. 3 had staked their claim to the post as scheduled tribe candidates. The official records produced reveal that on a written complaint made by one Shr i Jagat Khound to the Vice Chancellor of the University contending that the peti tioner had submitted a false scheduled tribe certificate, as decided by the auth orities thereof, in terms of letter No. C.34013/6/2005-Vig of the Ministry of Hu man Resource Development (Department of Secondary and Higher Education), Vigilan ce Section, Government of India, the Assistant Registrar (Estt.), Tezpur Univers ity, by his letter dated 2/7/2008 requested the President/Vice President of Assa m Tribal Sangha, Jorhat District, to confirm his status with reference to the ce rtificate submitted by him. While expressing urgency in the matter, a reply was sought for on or before 5/7/2008 as the interview for the post for which the sam e had been submitted was scheduled to be held on 7/7/2008. As admitted by the Un iversity, the reply dated 10/7/2008 of the All Assam Tribal Sangha, Jorhat Distr ict, affirming the petitioner’s certificate testifying him to belong to the sche duled tribe community was received by the University through fax on 9/7/2008 at 1750 hours. The letter is also a part of the records. The interview, however, wa s held as scheduled on 7/7/2008. 11. The advertisement discloses that out of the two posts one would be reserved for the members of the scheduled tribe requiring that the candidates would have to appear in a written and/or personal interview. The records reveal that a written examination was conducted and on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates of both the categories they were short listed for personal int erview. Eight scheduled tribe candidates including the petitioner and the respon dent No. 3 were screened on the basis of their performance in the written examin ation for the interview. The answer scripts of the said scheduled tribe candidat es as available in the official records disclose that the petitioner had scored higher than the respondent No. 3 in the written examination. For obvious reasons , the marks of the candidates have not been divulged herein. Suffice it to menti on that the margin of difference in the marks secured by the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 cannot be dismissed as negligible, having regard to the scheme of assessment of the suitability of the candidates on their overall performance in the two segments of the process i.e. the written examination and interview. T he records, however, do not contain any basis of the appreciation of the perform ance of the candidates in the interview either by the individual members of the Interview Board or collectively. There is no indication whatsoever as to the asp ects emphasized upon by the Board for comparative assessment of suitability of t he candidates or any objective basis demonstrating such evaluation. The records, however, demonstrate that the petitioner otherwise had been dealt with as a sch eduled tribe candidate and the proceedings do not betray anything to the contrar y. The complaint against his scheduled tribe status also stands negated by the r esponse of the All Assam Tribal Sangha. The petitioner’s charge of the process b eing vitiated by personal grudge or partisan favour is also not discernible from the records. 12. The above notwithstanding, having regard to the professed and ad ministered scheme of the selection which indubitably contemplate a cumulative as sessment of the performance of the candidates both in written as well as persona l interview, in the exigency of fairness, legitimacy and transparency of the pro cess, the ultimate selection to be valid ought to be endorsed by objective mater ial inputs. The minutes of the meeting of the Interview Board/Selection Committe e is conspicuously silent about the considerations founded on which the candidat es referred to therein had been recommended for appointment. The official record s submitted as observed hereinabove also do not carry any basis whatsoever in su pport thereof. Having regard to the two constituent and inseparable units of ass essment of a candidate for eventual selection, in the opinion of this Court, the essentiality of recording the basis of their appraisal in the interview to gaug e their overall performance for recommendation cannot be cast aside as inconsequ ential. 13. The appointment being one akin to a public post, the exercise pe rtaining thereto has to be determinate, outright and non-arbitrary to generate a n unreserved conviction of its acceptance. Institutional autonomy cannot be perm itted to jettison these peremptory imperatives recognized by law. The University having regard to its status and distinction is not free from these cardinal pre scriptions concomitant to a public participatory process for appointment to its posts. The records of the selection placed before this Court do not vouchsafe th e observance of the above time tested edicts ordained by law. 14. In the above view of the matter, the impugned selection for the posts reserved for scheduled tribe category so far as it relates to the post of Assistant Registrar in the General Administration Department/Office of the Unive rsity cannot be sustained. As a result, the same is adjudged to be illegal and n onest in law. Consequentially the appointment of the respondent No. 3 is set asi de. The matter is remitted to the University for redoing the process from the st age of the interview of the candidates as short listed by it. As understandably the post involved requires to be filled up early, the University would expedite the process from its end. Needless to say, the drill hereafter would be conducte d, having regard to the observations made hereinabove. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs.