Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
SAMIDUR RAHMAN S/O ANSER ALI SARKAR - Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE OF ASSAM and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C)/3071/2017
Decided On : 12-05-2021
Constitution of India - Article 226 – Retired from service – Claim of compensation - Whether candidates were from Category-A and Category-B but with name of petitioner appearing therein it is evident that merit list is a combined list of Category-A and Category-B - From steps taken it appears that vide order Court had allowed petitioner to take steps for service of notice on respondent nos. 9 to 11 by dastimode through respondent no.6 and accordingly as per affidavit filed petitioner projects that notice was served on respondent no.6 for onward service on respondent nos. 9 to 11 - Thus no order has been passed by Court to accept due service of notice on respondent no. 8 and 12 - Nonetheless in view of nature of judgment proposed to be passed Court has proceeded to deliver judgment in absence of respondent –
Finding of the Court: As regards plea that as many selected candidates had not submitted experience certificate issued by a power utility company petitioner has imp leaded only private respondent nos. 8 to 12 – Moreover petitioner has not annexed any document to support argument made by his learned counsel as such selection and appointment of private respondents cannot be tinkered with in absence of any adverse material on record - Nonetheless there is another way to look at this aspect of matter - As per employment advertisement engagement under Category-B temporary workers were required to have experience as workers engaged in any power utility - In this regard it is well known that APDCL had out-sourced maintenance to third party - However on a perusal of documents annexed to connected writ petition it appears that workers engaged by such third party had obtained experience certificates which were duly counter-signed by AGM concerned - In this regard Court is of considered opinion that respondent nos. 2 to 7 is entitled to some amount of freedom in matter of selection and appointment as they are aware of what is their requirement when issuing employment advertisement - It would lead to absurdity if applicants in Category-B could only be persons who were temporarily engaged in power utility because by no stretch of imagination this was a recruitment process to regularize service of temporary or casual workmen engaged by APDCL or its licensee –
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
Heard Mr. J. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent no.1 and Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. R. Deka, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7. None appears on call the private respondent nos. 8 to 12.
2. On perusal of the record, it appears that there is no order accepting due service of notice on respondent nos. 8 and 12. From the steps taken, it appears that vide order dated 19.03.2018, the Court had allowed the petitioner to take steps for service of notice on respondent nos. 9 to 11 by dastimode through respondent no.6 and accordingly, as per affidavit filed on 09.05.2018, the petitioner projects that notice was served on respondent no.6 for onward service on respondent nos. 9 to 11. Thus, no order has been passed by the Court to accept due service of notice on respondent no. 8 and 12. Nonetheless, in view of the nature of judgment proposed to be passed, the Court has proceeded to deliver the judgment in the absence of the respondent nos. 8 and 12.
3. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the engagement of the private respondent nos. 8 to 12 as trainee Sahayak, and also prayed for a direction to the APDCL authorities, i.e. respondent nos.2 to 7 to select and appoint the petitioner as Sahayak.
4. In short, the case of the petitioner is that he had successfully completed the course of Industrial Training Institute of Government of Assam (ITI for short) and had passed out the prescribed test in the Trade of Electrician. The petitioner belongs to unreserved category.
5. By virtue of an employment advertisement published on 09.04.2013, the respondent no.3 had invited applications from eligible candidates for filing up of 1064 posts of Sahayak under APDCL out of which 73 posts were under Kokrajhar Electrical Circle. Accordingly, the petitioner had submitted his application in the said Electrical Circle Office of the respondent nos. 2 to 7. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was issued call letters to appear in physical fitness test scheduled on 22.07.2013 and 23.07.2013 at Dwimalu Field, near Kokrajhar S.P. Office, Kokrajhar and after successful completion of the test, the petitioner had appeared for interview for engagement as Trainee Sahayak on 25.07.2013 and 26.07.2013 in the office of the General Manager, Guwahati Zone, APDCL (LAZ) (respondent no.4). However, without publishing any selection list and without assigning any reasons, the interview was cancelled and the authorities issued another re-examination call letter to again appear for physical fitness test on 03.10.2013 and interview on 04.10.2013 at ASEB Complex, Narengi. Thereafter, by virtue of an advertisement, the respondent no.4 had published the selection list dated 21.02.2014 of the candidates for Training (sic. ought to be Trainee) Sahayak selected for engagement in the seven Circles under Guwahati Zone, viz., Guwahati Electrical Circle-I, Guwahati Electrical Circle-II, Rangia Electrical Circle, Mangaldoi Electrical Circle, Barpeta Electrical Circle, Bongaigaon Electrical Circle and Kokrajhar Electrical Circle. As per the said Select List, out of 73 selected candidates in respect of Kokrajhar Electrical Circle, category-wise selection was as follows, viz., 40 (unreserved), 20 (OBC), 7 [ST(P)], 5 (SC), 1 [ST(H)] and none (PH).
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had obtained 65.00 marks out of 100 marks and his name was placed at serial no. 93 of the merit list, still his name was left out and though the respondent nos. 8 to 12 had got selected despite obtaining lesser marks than the petitioner. It is also submitted that the challenge to the selection and appointment of the private respondents in this writ pe
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
