WP(C) 5769/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI. B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Date of hearing : 27.2.2008. Date of delivery of judgment : 28.02.2008. JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. Both the writ petitions being inter-connected were heard together and ar e being disposed of by this common order. 2. WP(C) No.5769 of 2007 has been filed seeking interference of the Court w ith the decision of the respondents to hold fresh selections for appointment to vacant posts of Junior Accounts Assistants in the Treasury establishments under the Kamrup District. WP(C) No.3456 of 2007, on the other hand, has been filed se eking the court’s interference with the said process of selection and for initia tion of a fresh process to fill up the posts in question. 3. The facts, in brief, may be noticed at the outset. Pursuant to a recruitment process initiated through the Employment Exchange for appointment in 15 vacant posts of Junior Accounts Assistants in the Treasury est ablishments under the Kamrup District written examinations were held on 24th and 25th of February 2007. The candidates were required to appear in three papers c onsisting of 100 marks each i.e. General Knowledge, General English and General Mathematics. The responsibility for the conduct of the written examinations, as it appears, was entrusted to the Principal of the Cotton Collegiate Higher Secon dary School at Guwahati. Accordingly, written examinations were held as schedule d wherein about 200 candidates appeared. 58 candidates were found qualified for the interview which was conducted on 17.7.2007 by a central recruitment committe e under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro). In the cour se of the interviews the two candidates who had secured the 1st and 2nd position in the written examinations were not in a position to answer any of the questio ns put to them by the interview Board. Doubt/suspicion being raised the Board th ought it necessary to look into the answer scripts of the aforesaid two candidat es. On due scrutiny of the said answer scripts it appeared that the answers give n by both the candidates against all the questions were similar and even descrip tive answers in General Knowledge and General English were the same. The mistake s made by the two candidates also were similar. That apart, the first page of th e answer scripts and all other pages appeared to be of different quality than wh at was supplied officially. Tampering of the stapling of the answer scripts was also revealed on examination of the same. The examination of the answer script o f the candidate who had secured the 3rd position in the written test, which was the next steps undertaken, also revealed similar illegalities. In such circumsta nces, a decision was taken on 18.7.2007 to cancel not only the result of the thr ee candidates in question but to cancel the entire examination as a whole and ho ld a re-examination. Aggrieved by the said decision WP(C) No.5769 of 2007 has be en filed whereas as already noted WP(C) No.3456 of 2007 has been filed seeking a direction from the Court for cancellation of the said examination. The second writ petition was instituted, perhaps, because of the fact that the decision of the official respondents to cancel the examinations taken on 18.7.2007 was not k nown to the petitioner in WP(C) No.3456 of 2007. 4. I have heard Sri B. C. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the wri t petitioners in WP(C) No.5769 of 2007. Sri B. J. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam has also been heard. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner in WP( C) No.3456 of 2007. The records and reports submitted pursuant to the Court’s ea rlier orders have been duly perused and considered. 5. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C ) No.5769 of 2007 has been short and precise. Relying on two decisions of the Ap ex Court in Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U., Puthuvalnikathu and another, reporte d in (2003)7 SCC 285 and in Ashok Lanka vs. Rishi Dikshit and others, reported i n (2006)9 SCC 90, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case the decision of the respondent authorities to cancel the entire of the examinations has been made on a scrutiny of the answer scripts of only three candidates. According to the learned counsel, as the number of candidates who t ook part in the written test was only around 200 the respondent authorities shou ld have made an attempt to find out whether the answer scripts of the other cand idates were tampered by similar illegalities and irregularities and whether the instances where illegalities/irregularities had occurred is so high that the goo d part of the examination cannot be severed from the bad. Only in such circumsta nces, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the official respond ents would have been justified in canceling examination as a whole. Learned coun sel has pointed out that the above is the law laid down by the Apex Court in the abovenoted two decisions wherein the Apex Court has emphasized that before canc eling a selection process serious endeavours must be made to segregate the good from the bad part and only in a situation where such a course of action is not p ossible, the cancellation of the examinations as a whole would be justified. 6. Taking note of the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court by order da ted 22.1.2008, this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), to cause a verification of the answer scripts of all the candidates who had appe ared in the written test to be made and thereafter to submit a report to the Cou rt. In compliance with the aforesaid order dated 22.1.2008 the Deputy Commission er had constituted a committee to examine the answer scripts of all the candidat es who had appeared in the written test and on receipt of a report of the said c ommittee the Deputy Commissioner has placed the said report before the Court thr ough the learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. 7. From the said report it is clear that the duly constituted committee car ried out the required exercise in two parts consisting of 147 candidates in the first instance and 55 candidates in the second. The reports along with the findi ngs recorded, which are before the Court, indicate that in the first batch of 14 7 candidates whose answer scripts were duly scrutinized by the committee no irre gularity much less any illegality has been found. The report also indicates the different parameters by which the answer scripts were scrutinized by the committ ee. The parameters adopted by the committee to scrutinize the answer scripts in question, in the considered view of the Court, are correct and appropriate param eters. The said report, therefore, is accepted. The conclusion of such acceptanc e by the Court would be that in respect of 147 candidates whose answer scripts w ere scrutinized by the committee there are no apparent irregularities or illegal ities. 8. In the second batch of 55 number of answer scripts, 9(nine) instances in volving 14 candidates, in all, have been mentioned by the committee in respect o f whom some discrepancies, illegalities and irregularities were detected by the committee. Apart from the 14 candidates mentioned in the report of the committee there are three other candidates i.e. serial Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the merit list o f the written test, whose answer scripts could not be scrutinized as the same we re seized by the police in connection with a criminal case. 9. Be that as it may, in respect of the 14 candidates in whose cases some d iscrepancies, irregularities and illegalities have been found such discrepancies have actually worked to the disadvantage of two candidates who have been given less marks than what they has actually secured. The said two candidates bearing Roll No.219 and 106, therefore, has to fall outside the purview of any irregular ities or illegalities which would vitiate their selections. In respect of 5 (fiv e) candidates bearing Roll Nos.331, 317, 322, 140 and Rangia-52 the discrepancy found by the committee is to the effect that the marks recorded in the answer sc ripts are marginally less than what has been recorded in the result sheet. The c ase of the aforesaid five candidates does not also pose any problem inasmuch as the benefit of the marks actually secured by them, as recorded in the answer scr ipts, can be awarded to them and their performance can be judged on that basis. 10. The facts recorded above, as evident from the report of enquiry placed b efore the Court, would go to show that apart from the three candidates who had s ecured the first three positions in written test and whose answer scripts have b een found to be grossly irregular, the irregularities in respect of other candid ates are restricted in number and the actual number of such candidates is only 7 . The total number of candidates whose answer scripts have revealed irregulariti es and illegalities, therefore, would be actually 10 in number. The aforesaid 10 persons are clearly identifiable. In respect of all other candidates who had ta ken part in the written test no discrepancies have been found or the discrepanci es that have been noticed by the committee are actually to the disadvantage of t he candidates or capable of corrections with minimum effort, as the case may be. 11. The above facts lead to the irresistible conclusion that the present is not a case where the good part of the selection has become so inseparably interm ingled with the bad part that the grain cannot be separated from the chaff. The Apex Court in the two decisions noted above have emphasized that the selection a s a whole should be cancelled only in the event of existence of a situation as n oted above which is not the case in the instant matter. The Court, therefore, in the facts of the present case, will have to hold that the decision of the respo ndents to cancel the examination as a whole was not justified. 12. This will bring the court to the question of the consequential direction s that would be appropriate to be passed in the present case. The Court has been informed that on the basis of the compilation of marks including the marks of t he candidates in whose cases irregularities/illegalities have been detected the viva voce test has since been completed. Obviously, some candidates who were not entitled to appear in the interview had so appeared. In such a situation the Co urt is of the view that the interviews should now be redone on the basis of fres h compilation/computation of marks in the written test in terms of the present d irections and all such candidates who are found to have qualified for the interv iew on the basis of the corrections made pursuant to the present order be asked to go through the viva-voce test once again. Naturally, as the candidates who wi ll be legitimately selected for the interview have been waiting for long the off icial respondents will act promptly in the matter and complete the exercise in t erms of the present directions within a period of two months form the date of re ceipt of a copy of this order or a certified copy thereof. 13. Consequently and in the light of the foregoing discussions WP(C) No.5769 of 2007 is allowed whereas WP(C) No.3456 of 2007 is dismissed.