Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
Rumi Gogoi D/o Suneswar Gogoi and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam to be Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Home And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 4133 of 2020
Decided On : 08-10-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 – Power of High court to issue writs - whether impugned speaking order issued by respondent is not sustainable on facts and in law - whether respondents have changed rules of game by adopting methods which were not reflected in advertisement - whether selection and admission process can be said to be illegal merely because some students scoring more than cut-off marks, say for example student securing 85% has not been admitted – whether High Court is recording any finding about entitlement of petitioner to relief - whether petition is being disposed of without examining claim on merits –
Finding of the Court:
High Courts dispose of matter merely with a direction to authority to 'consider' matter without examining issue raised even though facts necessary to decide correctness of order are available - Neither pressure of work nor complexity of issue can be a reason for court, to avoid deciding issue which requires to be decided, and disposing of matter with a direction to 'consider' matter afresh - Be that as it may - Court is of considered opinion that if interpretation sought to be given by counsel for petitioners is to be accepted, then petitioners, who have remained unsuccessful in recruitment process of year 2009 for AB Constable result of which was declared after select list was approved, would secure appointment after a lapse of 11 years now - More so, when petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that (i) reasons assigned in said Speaking Order for not selecting petitioners is incorrect, wrong, not sustainable on facts or contrary to records, (ii) that any of 126 petitioners in this writ petition had secured more marks in his/her respective category, yet was deprived of selection and appointment –
Result: Writ petitions disposing of
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, assisted by Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate.
Stand taken in the writ petition, in brief, and reliefs ought for :
2. In brief, the case of the petitioners is that by filing W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010, they had assailed the selection process of Armed Branch Constable in the Assam Police which was undertaken in the year 2009. By judgment and order dated 22.02.2019, this Court had disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to consider the cases of the petitioners in the said writ petition for appointment in Armed Branch Constable (hereinafter referred to as ‘AB Constable’ for short) or in any other equivalent post in the vacancies available and it was further ordered that the respondent authorities would not fill up the post of AB Constable without considering the cases of the petitioners. Pursuant to the said judgment dated 22.02.2019, the Director General of Police (respondent no.2), by passing a speaking order dated 21.10.2019 purportedly in compliance of W.P.(C) 2725/2010, rejected the cases of the petitioners, thereby disentitling them for appointment as AB Constable in the Assam Police. On the ground that the said speaking order is in willful disobedience to the judgment dated 22.02.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010, the petitioner nos. 131 to 134 herein had filed a contempt petition, which was registered as Cont. Cas (C) No.698/2019.
3. In the meanwhile an employment advertisement was issued on 25.04.2018, for recruitment of 5494 posts of AB Constables/UB Constables in the Assam Police. This was followed by an Addendum advertisement dated 19.12.2019, by which upon receipt of approval for recruitment of another 1168 posts (UB Constable – 540 and AB Constable 628) in Assam Police, as such, it was envisaged that 6662 posts of AB/UB Constables would be filled up. It is projected in this writ petition that the petitioners have assailed the subsequent recruitment process before this Court by filing W.P.(C) 2725/2020 and W.P.(C) 3020/2020.
4. It is further projected that during the pendency of the contempt petition and the said two writ petitions, the respondent no. 3 had issued a corrigendum dated 21.08.2020 to the effect that the herein before referred speaking order dated 21.10.2019 was not passed in compliance of the judgment dated 22.02.2019 in W.P.(C) 2725/2010. The said speaking order dated 21.10.2019 and the corrigendum dated 21.08.2020 are the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioners have prayed for setting aside and quashing of the same.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner :
5. In course of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively referred to the pleadings in the writ petition, and has read over the judgment dated 22.02.2019 in W.P.(C) 2725/2010. It has been submitted that in the said judgment, this Court had given a specific findings to the effect that some illegality had been committed by the respondents undertaking the selection process for the post of AB Constable, but despite the said finding, this Court had refrained from interfering with the appointments already made and at the same time, this Court had arrived at a conclusion that the process of selection was arbitrary and beyond the terms and conditions that was indicated in the advertisement and therefore, directions were issued to the following effect, viz.,
(2) If it is found that the petitioners in the meantime
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
