Point of Law : 10. Rules clearly stipulates that Rules would be applicable only in case of next kin of person who is a martyr or who is physically disabled and not in case of a person who had participated in Assam Movement and had sustained injury like in case on hand.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Chhaya, J.-

1. Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department as well as Mr. R.K. Borah, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3096/2022, the appellant/original petitioner has preferred this appeal.

3. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal:

It is the case of the appellant that her father late Mukul Borah was an active participant of the Assam Movement. It is the further case of the appellant that while taking part in the Assam Movement her late father sustained injuries on 23.02.1983 and was admitted to Puranigudam S.D., Nagaon. It is the further case of the appellant that because of the injury so sustained, her father became physically disabled and later died due to physical disability. Relying upon a certificate dated 22.11.2014 issued by the All Assam Students’ Union, the appellant claims that she is entitled to preferential appointment being a daughter of the victim. The appellant has also relied upon a certificate dated 25.07.2016 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Nagaon relating to the injury of her father as provided under Rule 2(a) of the Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for the sake of brevity). Thus, it is the case of the appellant that as per the provisions of the Rules, kin of a person who was killed in the Assam Movement or had sustained disability, is entitled to the benefit of the same. It is the case of the appellant that she has every right to get employment under the provisions of the Rules. The record indicates that the appellant approached the authorities by filing representations dated 04.03.2021 and 23.02.2022 which were not considered and hence, the appellant approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the authorities to appoint her in any Grade-III post being a next of kin of the victim’s family in Assam agitation under the provisions of the Rules. The appellant/original petitioner predominantly relied upon the certificate dated 22.11.2014 issued by the All Assam Students’ Union, which is in the form of “Victim’s Certificate” and so also the certificate dated 25.07.2016 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Nagaon, which shows that the father of the appellant was injured in connection with his participation in the Assam Movement. The appellant has also relied upon a certificate dated 12.09.2014 issued by the in-Charge Medical Officer, Puranigudam S.D. Nagaon.

4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and hence, this appeal.

5. Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the contentions which were raised before the learned Single Judge and contended that as per the medical certificate dated 12.09.2014 issued by the in-Charge Medical Officer, Puranigudam S.D. Nagaon, the father of the appellant sustained a cut injury and thus falls within the scope and ambit of Rule 2 of the Rules and, therefore, it is contended that as per Rule 4 of the Rules, the appellant would be entitled to preferential appointment. It was contended by Mr. Islam that the learned Single Judge has not considered the materials on record and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the father of the appellant was not totally disabled as per the provisions of Rule 2(f) of the Rules and thus committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. Mr. Islam contended that no further proof is necessary to prove that the father of the appellant was physically disabled due to the injury sustained in the Assam Movement. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge