Hrishikesh Roy, J.:-

1. Heard Mr. M Nath, learned counsel ap­pearing for the petitioner. The Assam State Co-operative Housing Finance Ltd. (herein­after referred to as 'the HOUSEFED') au­thorities (respondent Nos.4 -- 6) are represented by Advocate Mr. B Chakraborty. The Govt. Advocate Ms. K Devi appears for the State respondent Nos. 1 -- 3.

2. The petitioner is serving as a Supervi­sor in the HOUSEFED since 11.11.1994 and although multiple reliefs are sought in the writ petition, in course of hearing, the only prayer made is for consideration of promotion of the petitioner, to the post of L.D.A.

3. Representing the petitioner, Mr. M Nath, learned counsel refers to the direction given on 28.2.2005 (Annexure-9) in the WP(C) No.9167/2005 to project that by now the promotion should have been con­sidered by considering the petitioner's ser­vice seniority, but despite the Court's direc­tion in the earlier round, the HOUSEFED authorities have deferred consideration through the impugned resolution of 4.7.2006 (page 58), until receipt of Govt. confirmation on the tribal status of the petitioner.

4. It may be noted that although the peti­tioner takes the tribal surname 'Khersa', his father is Dr. Harendra Nath Gogoi is a non-tribal and belongs to the OBC category. But the petitioner's mother Nilota Khersa belongs to the Dimasa Kachari community, which is recognized as a ST(H) community in Assam and claiming lineage through his mother, the petitioner secured a ST(H) certificate on 27.9.1988 (Annexure-1).

5. Since he was understood to have en­tered service through misrepresentation of his tribal status, the petitioner's claim for promotion was initially kept pending by the Man­aging Director, HOUSEFED through his or­der dated 18.7.2005 (Annexure-11) for veri­fication of the social status of the petitioner. Thereafter the District Scrutiny Committee constituted through the Govt. Notification of 5.10.2003 scrutinized the social status of about 105 persons and this Committee which met on 12.9.2005, declared the petitioner's ST certificate to be' genuine'. Accordingly the HOUSEFED authorities were expected to consider promotion by considering the peti­tioner too as a ST(H) category person.

6. But it appears from the counter affidavit filed by the HOUSEFED that earlier the EAC, Kamrup (R) scrutinized the petitioner's tribal status. In this exercise where the peti­tioner was afforded hearing, the inquiry officer found that the petitioner stayed at Guwahat in Kamrup (Metropolitan) District and was brought up by his doctor father Dr. Harendra Nath Gogoi, who himself is a non-tribal (OBC). Therefore it was held that the petitioner is disentitled to claim the mother's tribal status.

7. However Advocate Mr. M Nath sub­mits that the District Scrutiny Committee con­stituted through the Govt. Notification dated 5.10.2003 had re-affirmed the petitioner to be member of the ST(H) category and on this basis it is argued that the petitioner be con­sidered for promotion as was earlier directed by this Court in the WP(C) No.9167/2005. The counsel submits further that since he did not join service as a tribal category person, the promotion can be considered as a Gen­eral Category candidate.

8. On behalf of the HOUSEFED authori­ties, Advocate Mr. B Chakraborty projects that ordinarily there may not be any difficulty to consider promotion by treating the peti­tioner as a General Category candidate. But here the petitioner deceived his employer by hiding his father's name in his application form and falsely mentioning the name of Nilu Khersa against the father's column in the ap­plication. Therefore the HOUSEFED authori­ties wanted to start a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. It is also projected that the correct name of the petitioner's mother is 'Nilota' but he deliberately mentioned the abbreviated name 'Nilu' only because, the shortened name 'Nilu' connotes the neutral gender. Because of this mischief, the employer wrongly understood "Nilu Khersa" to b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document