The Meghalaya High Court has directed the Chief Secretary to take action against the members of the interview board of the Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation who conducted the interview on February 25, 2021 and hijacked the process without any adherence to ordinary norms of fairness.
The division bench of the High Court passed the order on September 8 on a writ appeal by Pynskhemlang Nongrang who was unfairly rejected in the interview for the post of driver in the Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation.
“The matter will be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary to the State for it to be reported to the appropriate vigilance authorities for taking action against the members who conducted the interview on February 25, 2021 and hijacked a process without any adherence to ordinary norms of fairness,” the court said.
The High Court also said that since it is evident that Nongrang has been unfairly treated and has lost a lifetime opportunity to obtain a job that he deserved, the State government and the Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation will have to pay him damages by way of costs assessed at Rs 3 lakh.
“Such costs have to be paid within three months, failing which it will carry simple interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the expiry of three months from date,” the court said.
The court also said that it will be open to the State government to extract the costs or a substantial portion thereof from the members of the interview board.
Further, the High Court said that since it is evident that Nongrang has been unfairly treated in the interview, the State government should consider him favourably in any future selection process for appointment in any category of post for which the appellant he is eligible to apply.
The court also said that in the event that Nongrang does not obtain any government job before the age bar comes into operation, as a result of the wrong done by the Directorate of Soil and Water Conservation to him, he would be entitled to a five-year latitude in respect of the age bar to be entitled to apply for government positions or in the State public sector undertakings.
According to the High Court, the score-sheet of the interview conducted on February 25, 2021 threw up serious anomalies. 100 marks were allotted for the driving skill test and another 100 for the interview.
“If six members conducted the interview and each of them had to mark out of a maximum, elementary arithmetic would reveal that the maximum marks that could be allotted by each interviewer was 16.66,” the court said.
It also said that the single-page score-sheet is divided into several columns. The two columns on the extreme left are the serial numbers of the candidates called for the interview and the roll numbers of such candidates, respectively. The next seven columns indicate the individual marks allotted by the interviewers, one of such columns remaining blank in view of the absence of the relevant interviewer. The column on the extreme right is the total marks obtained by adding up individual marks allotted by the individual interviewers. Since the total marks allotted for the interview was 100, the marks indicated in the extreme right column would be the marks obtained by the relevant candidate out of the maximum of 100.
“Yet, it is evident from the score-sheets that the second member of the interview board allotted 18 marks to the candidate bearing roll number 031 and the fifth member allotted 17 marks to the same candidate! Surprises never cease. As far as the other successful candidate was concerned, four of the six interviewers gave him 16 marks,” the court said.
“Thus, on the combined strength of the liberal manner in which the ultimate successful candidates were marked by the interviewers and the much less marks awarded to the appellant herein in the interview, the advantage of the 14 marks that the appellant enjoyed, at the time of entering the interview room, was whittled down and overhauled,” it added.
According to the High Court, ordinarily, any form of assessment would involve certain parameters. “Keeping in mind that this was an interview for the post of a driver, the parameters may have been awareness of traffic regulations, knowledge of roads and even an element of presentability. However, it does not appear that any guidelines were followed in assessing the candidates called for the interview,” it said.
