|HC lambasts APSC for lack of credibility|
GUWAHATI, Sept 7 – In a hard-hitting order, the Gauhati High Court today questioned the "fairness and transparency" of the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) in selection of candidates, saying that the constitutional body lacked "credibility and trustworthiness which the APSC is required to maintain in public eye."
Acting on a writ petition (WP-C 3.220 of 2010) filed by Dulal Deka of Kamrup who challenged the selection of Juri Devi of Jagiroad (one of the respondents) for the post of Assistant Director (Yoga) under the Sports and Youth Welfare Department, Government of Assam, the court found serious anomalies in the way the APSC conducted the selection process, showing a marked biasness to Juri Devi.
In the court order, Justice BK Sharma observed that the APSC maintained double standards during the process of selection, which was "very disturbing and unbecoming of a constitutional body."
The court observed that "as things stand today, appointments to the services of the APSC are made in political consideration and in the process, the quality of services and the sanctity of the APSC, a constitutional body, are compromised."
Pointing out that the respondent's diploma certificate did not conform to the requirement prescribed in the advertisement for the post, the court said that her candidature could not have been accepted. "…such stand on the part of the APSC is per-se illegal and contrary to the real state of affairs relating to the said certificate as depicted by the institute itself," the order read.
The court found it shocking that a constitutional body like the APSC on whose duties, responsibilities and conduct the general public repose confidence, supported tooth and nail the candidature of the respondent even to the extent of she having impliedly conformed to the required qualification of diploma/degree in Yoga from a Government/UGC-recognized institute, ignoring the same parameters and yardsticks that would be applicable to the case of the petitioner, and questioning the very eligibility of the petitioner.
Curiously, the court found the APSC's marking system in the order 'very good', 'good', 'average' and 'fair', with 'fair' having been placed below 'average' with 14 marks for 'fair' and 16 marks for 'average.'
The court observed that on perusal of the documents on the basis of which the final select list was drawn, it became apparent that "the manner and method in which they are maintained, it does not inspire confidence of this court that the selection was conducted in a fair and transparent manner confronting to the requirements of a proper selection."