Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 888
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Smti Minakshi Medhi, D/o Suren Medhi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 4730 of 2012
Decided on : 28-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Z. Hussain, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. D. Borah, SC, Health & Family Welfare Department,
Point of Law: Categorization of petitioner as a General Category candidate (Unreserved) is an error apparent on face of the records.
Headnote:
Advertisement - Recruitment process - Appointment as Ward Girls - Court is of the unhesitant opinion that categorization of petitioner as a General Category candidate (Unreserved) is an error apparent on the face of the records - Court is therefore of opinion that a case for interference is made out. Para 11
Finding of the court: Court is also of view that private respondent, who was appointed in year has been rendering her service for more than a decade and no fault can be attributed to her for error committed by authorities - Without disturbing services of private respondents, it is directed that petitioner be considered and appointed in any existing vacancy of Ward Girl or in any vacancies which would occur in immediate future - Such appointment would be on strength of her selection in duly conducted recruitment process - It is further made clear that age bar would not apply in present case as petitioner was wrongfully denied of her appointment in spite of securing marks which would lead to an appointment if she was properly categorized as an SC category.
Result: Writ petition stands allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department.
2. The issue involved is with regard to the assertion made by the petitioner that she belongs to the Schedule Caste Community and had participated in a recruitment process initiated vide an advertisement dated 21.10.2011 for appointment as Ward Girls in the Gauhati Medical College. The grievance precisely is that one candidate securing less marks have been given the benefit of the appointment and the petitioner who had got more marks has been denied the said benefit by terming her to be a General Category Candidate.
3. When this matter had come up for consideration on 24.08.2023, this Court had noticed that the petition was pending for more than a decade in spite of which, the records of the case was not produced. Accordingly, this Court had granted a final opportunity to the learned Standing Counsel of the Department to produce the records.
4. Ms. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the records, as such could not be traced out. However, whatever documents was available has been transmitted to her which have accordingly being placed before this Court.
5. Shri Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a recruitment process was initiated for filling up certain numbers of posts in the Gauhati Medical College which included 15 numbers of posts of Ward Girls. The petitioner who claims to be belonging to the Schedule Caste (SC) Community (Kaibor a) and have the requisite qualification had participated in the said process. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she had applied under the category of SC, she was treated as a General (Unreserved) category candidate and in the said process, was deprived from appointment in the selection process. The petitioner had also arrayed the candidate, who was appointed in the category of SC as respondent no. 6 subsequently as allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2018 passed in IA(C) No. 748/2018. It is the categorical case of the petitioner that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the SC category is more than the marks of the respondent no. 6. By referring to the merit list which has been annexed as Annexure-C, it is submitted that while the respondent no. 6 had secured 102.5 marks, the petitioner at Sl. No. 48 had secured 111.5. The learned counsel accordingly submits that because of certain error whereby the petitioner has been treated to be a General (Unreserved) category, she has been deprived of the appointment.
6. Ms. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel of the Department however submits that the appointments were made in the year 2012 and more than a decade has passed and therefore the same may not be interfered with. It is also submitted on behalf of the Department that the category of the private respondent as SC is not disputed.
7. The issue which has fallen for determination is with regard to the action of the respondents in treating the petitioner as a General (Un-reserved) category candidate quathe selection process for filling up amongst others, 15 numbers of posts of Ward Girls in the Gauhati Medical College Hospital. In paragraph-3 of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly stated that she belongs to the SC community and the certificate has also been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. A prima facie look at the said certificate demonstrates that the same has been issued by the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur in the year 1997, i.e. much prior to the recruitment process. The said statement made in paragraph 3 has not been denied by the respondent authorities in the affidavit-in-opposition dated 01.02.2013 filed through the respondent no. 4. A further statement has been made by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit dated 04.02.2018.
8. For ready reference, the relevant pleadings mentioned above are extracted h
