The Meghalaya High Court today directed the Soil and Conservation Department to produce the original records pertaining to the recent interview and practical test for appointment of drivers in the department following alleged irregularities in the selection process.
The division bench of the High Court comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh also asked the department to produce at the next hearing on September 1 the marks allotted by the individual examiners at the interview and their comments, if any and also all working-sheets pertaining to the interview along with the records.
The High Court was hearing a writ appeal by Pynskhemlang Nongrang, a candidate for the post. Nongrang has questioned the result of the selection process for recruitment of two posts of driver in the Soil and Conservation Department.
The selection process consisted of two parts: a practical test where driving skills were assessed and an interview.
The department asserted that 50 per cent of the marks were allotted for the practical examination and another 50 for the interview.
In the practical examination, Nongrang secured 84 out of 100 marks while another candidate secured 70 marks out of 100 and another secured 73 marks out of 100.
In the subsequent interview, however, the candidate who secured 73 marks out of 100 is said to have secured 87 marks while Nongrang got only 60 marks.
Though the exact marks obtained in the interview by the candidate who secured 70 marks out of 100 could not be indicated by the State government lawyer at the hearing, the High Court said that it is evident that the cumulative marks of the candidate also exceeded 144.
“Since, ordinarily, a person more suited to obtaining a driving appointment would be a person whose driving skills are better, as evident from the practical examination results, the matter has to be looked into to ascertain how the appellant (Nongrang), despite being head and shoulders over the rest of the field in driving skill could fare so poorly in the interview to not qualify for even the second of the two posts,” the High Court said.
“The official respondents should produce the original records pertaining to the selection process, including the marks allotted by the individual examiners at the interview and their comments, if any. All working-sheets pertaining to the interview should be produced along with the records,” the court added while fixing September 1 as the next date of hearing.
