Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

selection cannot question the validity of the list, so far as the same relates to their positions in the merit
list. The contention raised by Mr. Chutia, learned counsel representing the APSC merits consideration.
However, since otherwise also, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions, this contention of Mr.
Chutia need not be elaborated.
Assam PSC
25. It need not be reiterated that the writ Court exercising its power of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make a roving enquiry into the kind of allegations made
in the writ petitions. The allegations are also all vague, indefinite and without any materials. It will be
too dangerous to draw any inference on the basis of such allegations. The decision on which Mr. KN
Choudhry, learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance i.e. (1998) 2 GLR 242 (Pradyut
Sarma Vs. APSC) 2001 (3) GLT (Debajani Choudhry Vs. State of Assam and Matiur Rahman
Bhuyan Vs. State of Assam reported in (2002) 2 GLR 179 are all to remind this Court the limit, scope
and jurisdiction of writ Court. In view of my aforesaid finding relating to the selection questioned in
this writ petitions, I need not make any further discussions on those decisions. Suffice is to say that the
decisions support the case of the respondents. In the aforesaid case of Madan Lal Vs. State of J&K
as reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088, the Apex Court has observed thus:
“9........... It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of
appeal and try to re-assess the relative merit of the concerned candidates who had been
assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they
were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview
Committee which amongst others consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the
relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines
laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on
merit as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the
round that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an
appellate body and we are certainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment
made by such an expert committee.
16........... The petitioners subjectively feel that as they had fared better in the written test
and had got more marks therein as compared to concerned selected respondents, they
should have been given more marks also at the oral interview. But that is in the realm of
assessment of relative merits of concerned candidates by the expert committee before
whom these candidate appeared for the via voce test. Merely on the basis of petitioners
apprehension or suspicion that they were deliberately given less marks at the oral interview
as compared to the rival candidates, it cannot be said that the process of assessment was
vitiated. This contention is in the realm of mere suspicion having no factual basis. It has
to be kept in view that there is not even a whisper in the petition about any personal bias
of the members of the interview committee against the petitioners. They have also not
alleged any malafides on the part of the interview committee in this connection.
227