Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 940
Gauhati High Court
A.M.Sapre, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Dr. Kriti Hazarika - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Jishnu Nath & Ors. - Respondent
WA Nos. 216 and 222 of 2014
Decided On : 23-06-2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.C. Borbora, Senior Advocate, Mrs. R.B. Borah, Mr. M. Smith, Ms. M. Dutta
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Gogoi, SC, Health, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Mr.H. Buragohain, for Caveator, Mr.D. Das, Mr.H. Nath
Headnote:
Army Rules, 1954 - Rules 11 to 18 - Respondents passed the impugned order - Appellant challenged the legality and correctness of the said discharge - Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner whereby challenge made to the order discharging the appellant locally from military service was rejected - Held, It was stated that his old parents were living with him - His wife was sick and was unable to look after his parents and two minor children - There was also no one to look after his farm land - He stated that because of such problems on the domestic front, he was unable to pursue counter insurgency duty - He therefore prayed for his discharge at the earliest - He was thereafter discharged by movement order of the Commanding Officer with effect - Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was pressurized and forced to submit the application for local discharge cannot be accepted because admittedly the appellant did not take any step either before the army authority or before the civil authority, if he was aggrieved by any act of coercion in the alleged extraction of his application for local discharge - No credence therefore can be given to the said contention of the appellant - Court also do not find any procedural infirmity in the action of the Regiment authority in locally discharging the appellant from the military service - Record indicates that the authority had issued the discharge certificate with recommendation for civil employment - Appeal dismissed.
2. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 2613/2014 and respondent No. 6 of WP(C) No. 1627 of 2014 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petitions.
3. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge, partly allowed one writ petition being WP(C)No. 1627/2014 and issued a writ of certiorari against the State and its authorities quashing the second result declared by the State on 14.3.2014 in relation to the entrance examination held for admission in MDS Course (Assam) in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati and further issued a mandamus directing the concerned State authorities to give effect to the first result declared on 13.2.2014 in relation to the aforesaid examination for giving admission and other ancillary benefits relating thereto to the successful candidates as per their merit. It was also held that respondent No. 6 (Kriti Hazarika) did not use any unfair means in the examination while answering her answer script as complained by the two writ petitioners against her. As a result of the issuance of the writs and the aforementioned finding the connected Writ petition being WP(C) No. 2613/2014 was dismissed.
4. So the question which arises for consideration in these 2 appeals is whether learned Single Judge was justified in partly allowing WP(C) No. 1627/2014 by issuing writ of certiorari in quashing the second result of the entrance examination declared on 14.3.2014 for admission in MDS Course (Assam) in Regional Dental College, Guwahati and was further justified in issuing a mandamus against the State to give effect to the first result declared on 13.2.2014 for giving admission to candidates and lastly whether he was justified in holding that respondent No. 6 ( Kriti Hazarika) did not use any unfair means in the examination while answering her answer script?
5. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeals, it is necessary to state the relevant facts, which lie in a narrow compass.
6. An educational notice was issued (Annexure - A) by the Controller of Examination, Shrimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati inviting applications from Dental Graduate students belonging to State of Assam for admission to the MDS Course (Assam quota) of Regional Dental College, Guwahati for the session 2014. Entrance test was to be held on 30.1.2014. In all, 56 candidates applied for the admission and appeared in the written test held on 30.1.2014. The results were declared on 13.2.2014. Three (3) candidates whose cases are subject matter of the two writ petitions out of which these two appeals arise secured marks in order of merit as under:
Sl. No.Name of the candidateMarks obtained
1.Jishnu Nath - (writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 1627/2014 and respondent no. 7 of WP(C) No. 2613.2014.336
2.Kriti Hazarika - (respondent no. 6 of WP(C) No. 1627 and WP(C) No.2613/ 2014)327
3.Mrinmoy Bhuyan - (writ petitioner of WP(C)No.2613/2014 and respondent no. 7 of WP(C)No.1627/2014 )325
7. On 15.2.2014, one candidate - Mrinmoy Bhuyan, who secured 325 marks, filed a RTI application (Annexure- 6) to the authorities demanding an information as to whether any kind of discrepancy or unfairness was noticed in the answer sheets of the candidate - Kriti Hazarika who secured 327 marks and Jishnu Nath who secured 336 marks and if so what kind of discrepancy and unfairness was noticed in their answer scripts?
8. On 17.2.2014, Mrinmoy Bhuyan and other candidates also filed an application (Annexure-7) to the Controller of Examination praying therein that revaluation of answer sheets of all can
