1. The advertisement No. 2/94-95 dated 3rd December, 1994 was issued inviting applications for filling up various posts under different Departments of the Government of Nagaland. Item 8 of the said advertisement concerns 2 posts of S.D.O. (Electrical). The petitioner applied for the post of S.D.O. (Electrical). Qualification prescribed for this post is Degree in Electrical Engineering from a recognised University. The petitioner graduated from the University of Kerala in Bachelor of Technology (Electrical & Electronics) in March, 1993. A call letter was issued on 5.4.95 by the Deputy Secretary, NPSC asking the petitioner to appear for the written test to be held on 29.4.95. The petitioner was allotted Roll No. 25. Having qualified in the written test, the petitioner was called for oral test to be held on 24.8.95. It is averred that as soon as oral test was over, tabulation of marks was done and results were declared on the same day and the members of the Nagaland Public Service Commission signed on 24.8.95. In the said tabulation, the petitioner was placed at serial 2 and the 4th respondent was placed at serial 3. The petitioner contends that he had seen the result on notice board on 25.8.95. It is further averred that subsequently the result was revised and in the said revision the 4th respondent was placed at serial 2 in place of the petitioner. The petitioner protested against the replacement of his name by the name of the 4th respondent. The petitioners contention is that once result is declared it becomes final and no change can be brought about. In accordance with the results declared on 24.8.95, the petitioner secured 176 marks in written test and 58 marks in oral test, whereas the 4th respondent secured 155 marks in written test and 70 marks in oral test. In the revision changes have been made in respect of marks allotted to oral test. Marks in respect of written test remained the same. In the revised tabulation 140 marks have been allotted to the 4th respondent in oral lest, whereas the petitioner has been allotted 116 marks. This has brought about change in the total of marks in respect of the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The petitioner contends that revision is illegal and it should be set aside and the result as declared on 24.8.95 should stand. On the basis of revision the Secretary, NPSC issued the letter of recommendation on 25th August, 1995. The letter of recommendation is in respect of two candidates inasmuch as there are only two regular vacancies in the Department in terms of the advertisement. The bone of contention is in respect of one post. The two persons recommended for appointment to the two vacant posts of S.D.O. (Electrical) Class-I under the Power Department is as follows:

(1) Shri Abentuung Ngullie (2) Shri Ato Sema As stated above, the petitioner takes a grievance against the revision made in respect of Shri Ato Sema, the 4th respondent in this petition.

2. Respondent No. 2, NPSC has filed affidavit. Annexure-E is the result dated 24.8.95. Name of Shri Abenthung Ngullie is at serial 1 and the Roll No. is shown as 3. The name of the petitioner is at serial 2 against Roll No. 25. In column of marks, figure 234 is shown against the name of the petitioner and 258 against the name of Shri Abenthung Ngullie. The name of the 4th respondent does not figure. Number of post is shown as two. In the remarks column the word "cancelled" is hand-written and the date is 25.8.95. There is no initial. In other-words there is nothing to show as to who signed it. In the reserve list at Annexure-G of the Commissions result sheet the name of the 4th respondent appears and in the marks column figure 225 is shown. In the remarks column the word "cancelled" is written and it is dated 25.8.95. The said reserve list was also prepared on 24.8.95. All the four members of the Commission had signed. In Annexure-F of the file of the Commission the word "revised" is written on the top. And in the revised list the name of the petitioner is out and in his place the name of the 4th respondent had been put. In the revised list also all the four members of the Commission signed. It is dated 25.8.95. In the subsequent revision the name of the petitioner is put in reserve list in place of the 4th respondent. Annexure-1 of the Commissions affidavit is tabulation and aggregation of interview marks for the oral test held on 24.8.95 and the maximum marks shown in the tabulation is 100 for the oral test. The said document is signed by the Chairman of the Commission. At this stage it may be stated that factually the oral interview held on 24.8.95 was for 100 marks. This is the factual position. The question that remains to be decided is whether change could have been brought about as regards the total marks allotted to oral test from 100 marks to 200 marks. Mr. I. Jamir, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Commission submits that on detection of some mistake in the result published on 24.8.95, the Commission revised the result sheet by rectifying the mistake. The defect that was found out was that, whereas in respect of all other Departments, 200 marks were allotted for oral interview, through inadvertance only 100 marks had been allotted for oral test when interviews were held on 24.8.95 in respect of the two posts of S.D.O. (Electrical). According to Mr. Jamir the Commission thought that there would be discrimination if equal marks were not allotted in respect of all the Departments. On careful perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, I am of the view that there is no question of any discrimination in the present case inasmuch as 100 marks were applied to all the candidates who came for interview in respect of the two posts of SDO (Electrical). The yard-stick of equality will have to be applied only among equals. If the candidates were tested for 100 marks there can be no question of discrimination. The point that calls for my decision is whether it is open to the Commission to enhance the marks of oral interview from 100 to 200 marks without conducting interview for 200 marks. In other words the question is whether it is reasonable and proper to enhance marks of oral interview from 100 to 200 without testing the candidates for 200 marks. The factual position is that the candidates were tested for 100 marks and not for 200 marks in the oral interview. In this view of the matter, it appears no candidate can be said to have earned credit in respect of the enhanced 100 additional marks. The position would have been different if the candidates were again tested for the additional 100 marks. The reason for effecting the change in the earlier result declared on 24.8.95 is given by the Secretary in his note dated 25.8.95 which is reproduced:

"It has been brought to my notice that Shri Y. Sema, Member, NPSC met the Chairman at his residence at 4 P.M. on 24.8.95. He pointed out that the result of SDO (Power) announced earlier on that day was defective. The Commission awarded marks to the candidates at the oral test held on 24th August `95 out of the maximum of 100 marks. On the other hand, the prescribed maximum marks for oral test for Nagaland Technical Service Class I posts was 200. Consequently, the result will have to be revised. The opinion of Shri Y. Sema is correct because in the case of oral test for SDO (Civil Engineering) announced vide Notification No.NPSC/C-1/12/91 dated 29th July 1995 maximum marks was 200. It is, therefore, evident that the marks awarded to the candidates in the oral test on 24.8.95 will have to be

Page No: 275 doubled. As a result of doing so, the merit list approved on 24.8.95 will have to be revised as follows:

Sl.No.RankNameRoll No.

1IShri Abenthung Ngulee3

2 IIShri Ato

Sema1





The commission may approve the revised results after cancelling the result of 24.8.95.

The note of the Secretary seeks approval of the Commission. There is nothing to show on record that the Secretarys suggestion was accepted and that the result of 24.8.95 was cancelled. On the other hand vide page 16 of Commissions affidavit which is a note of the Commission marked `A which is to the following effect:

"The marks obtained by each in both written and oral has been tabulated in annexure `D and the merit list at annexure `E. The names of successful candidates to be recommended against 2 (two) posts may be seen at annexure `F waiting list may be seen at annexure `G.

The Commission may examine and approve the lists before officially declaring the result. As regards release of two names from the reserve list for appointment to the posts of Overseer Gr I. we may perhaps wait for an official intimation from the C.E. Power". All the members signed on 24.8.95. The Chairman also signed on 24.8.95 with the note "A&B of Secys Note approved".

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in fact the 4th respondent is not a local indigenous person. As such the 4th respondent could not have been selected by the Commission on the fooling that he is not a local Naga. In support of this contention Mr. Iralu, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to certain documents including Electoral Roll containing the names of the father of the 4th respondent, the mother and the name of the 4th respondent himself. According to the petitioner the 4th respondent is the son of an Assamese gentleman, although the mother belongs to the Sema community. As regards this contention Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned counsellor the 4th respondent submits that whether the 4th respondent is a local person or not should not matter as far as his application for the post and selection thereof by the Commission is concerned. It is entirely for the competent authority to see if appointment is to be given at all. It is also submitted by Mr. B.N. Sarma whether the 4th respondent has a certificate to the effect that he is an indigenous local inhabitant is not open to the petitioner to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. According to Mr. B.N. Sarma the question as to whether the 4th respondent is an indigenous local inhabitant of the State or not would involve disputed facts and therefore this court cannot enter into this issue. It is submitted that such dispute can be settled only by a competent. Civil Court. In this regard the submission made by Mr. B.N. Sarma is reasonable and has force. It appears the petitioner cannot really take a grievance as far as the candidature of the 4th respondent is concerned. The only question is whether the 4th respondent has been rightly selected or whether there is flaw or infirmity in the selection process and in the declaration of result by the Commission. In this regard, the submission of Mr. Iralu is therefore not acceptable. Mr. Iralus another submission is that as soon as selection is made and the results are declared the duty of the Commission should come to an end and no change can be brought about in the manner in which it has been done in the present case. Mr. Iralu submits that in the present case cancellation was done, that also without any signature and clear approval of the Commission on 25.8.95, whereas selection was over on 24.8.95 inasmuch as all the members of the Commission had already signed on This copy was printed from the result sheet on 24.8.95. Shri Y. Sema himself is a member of the Commission. According to Secretarys note it was at his instance-that the change was sought to be made. Mr. B.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that selection becomes final only after approval is accorded by the Government. Therefore, according to him change could be validly made by the Commission before the list of selected candidates was formally sent to the competent authority.

4. In 1994 Vol-1 SCC 160 particularly para 8 it was held:

"Even on the merits of the controversy we arc of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in selling aside the selection on the basis of the"two letters". The function of the Selection Committee comes to an end when the process of selection is completed and the proceedings arc drawn. Every member of the Selection Committee has a right to give his independent, unbiased and considered opinion in respect of each candidate appearing before the Committee. Normally, it would not be considered a bona fide act on the part of a member of the Selection Committee to say, after the selection is over and he has signed the proceedings, that he"overlooked"certain qualifications in respect of a candidate. The sanctity of the process of selection has to be maintained. It would be travesty of the selection process if the candidates are encouraged to meet members of the Selection Committee after the selection is over and to obtain letters from them attempting to renege the selection made. The High Court, in the facts of the present case, grossly erred in setting aside the selection and appointment of Dr. Mohapatra".

In my view once the proceedings were concluded and the members had signed on the proceedings, no change should be brought about as far as that said proceeding are concerned. In other-words, selection made in the said proceedings should become final soon after the members signed the proceedings.

5. Mr. B.N. Sarma submits that since enhancement of marks has been done equally, the petitioner cannot take a grievance if after such enhancement the 4th respondent has got more marks in the oral test because of the enhancement. As I have already stated above, doubling of marks from 100 to 200 for the oral test does not seem to have a reasonable basis, inasmuch as the enhanced marks cannot be said to have been earned by the candidates. This system, if not checked, will surely lead to unhealthy practice in the matter of conduct of examinations and such practice would amount to abuse of power vested in an authority. Mr. BN. Sarma further submits that in view of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1987 S.C. 454 the allocation of marks for oral test is excessively high. In terms of the decision of the Supreme Court, the percentage of marks allocated for oral test is supposed to be 12.2%. In such a situation Mr. B.N. Sarma submits that this court can take suo moto action and direct the Commission to rectify the entire selection procedure afresh. Mr. B.N. Sarma has referred me to a decision of this Court reported in 1995 Vol I GLR 358 in which this court had directed to conduct the test afresh. It appears in that case 100 marks were allotted for written test, whereas 200 marks were allotted for oral test. Strictly speaking this case cannot be applied to the present case. However, it is true the marks allotted for oral test in the present case arc excessively high. In this view of the matter if I am to accept Mr. Sarmas submission, I would hold that 100 marks for oral test were even excessive. Hence there will be no room whatsoever for enhancing marks for oral interview from 100 to 200 and that too without testing the candidates for the extra/enhanced 100 marks. In my view, therefore, in the present case the selection process had come to an end as soon as all the members signed the proceedings on 24.8.95. No change could have been made thereafter and (hat too simply by doubling the marks of the oral test from 100 to 200.

6. In the result, this petition is allowed. I hold that the proceeding of selection signed on 24.8.95 is the validly declared result. In view of this, the impugned letter issued by the Secretary NPSC on 25th August 1995, Annexure-B is set aside.

7. Before parting with this case, I must say that it is high time that immediate steps should be taken to see that the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test should be drastically reduced. To do this no doubt will minimise the vice of arbitrariness. More importance and emphasis should be given to the test of knowledge of the concerned subjects in the written test.

With the above direction and observation, this petition is disposed of.

No costs.