SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Gau) 116

AMITAVA ROY
Kishore Kalita – Appellant
Versus
Brahmaputra Board – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The appointments of respondent No(s). 7 and 8 as Assistant Engineers with the Brahmaputra Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) are under challenge. The contention of the petitioner in essence is that he having fared much better than the said respondents in the written examination, their selection only on the basis of the relatively higher marks obtained by them in the interview is unsustainable in law.

2. I have heard Mr. P.G. Baruah, senior advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D. Choudhury, advocate for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. D Baruah, learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

3. First the pleaded facts. The petitioner, an Engineering Graduate in the Civil discipline, in response to the advertisement published by the Board on 10.9.2003 for filling up two posts of Assistant Engineer, offered his candidature. He thereafter pursuant to the letter dated 6.2.2004 appeared in the written test and obtained 97 per cent marks. According to him, the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 could secure marks in the range of 50 per cent in the said examination. Thereafter about 40 candidates were selected for the oral interview. The petitioner being called appeared in the viva v
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top