Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1836
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Paresh Hazarika - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
WP (C) No. 5896 of 2013
Decided On: 13-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : U. Nanda, Adv.
For the Respondents:D. Bora, Learned Junior Government Advocate and D. Upamanyu, Learned Standing Counsel
The court directed the consideration of a petitioner's appointment against available vacancies from a 2005 recruitment drive, emphasizing fair treatment for candidates with disabilities.
Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Special Recruitment Drive - The petitioner, selected for a Grade-IV post in 2005 for persons with benchmark disabilities, was not appointed despite the validity of the select list expiring. The court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's case for appointment against available vacancies from the 2005 recruitment drive. (Paras 2, 12, 16)
(B) Recruitment Process - The court emphasized the need for compliance with the directions issued in previous cases regarding appointments for persons with disabilities, ensuring that the petitioner is accommodated against any available vacancy. (Paras 9, 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a Grade-IV post in 2005, was selected but not appointed, leading to the current proceedings after representations were ignored.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to consideration for appointment against available vacancies from the 2005 recruitment drive.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the select list and the petitioner's right to appointment despite its expiration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner should be considered for appointment against available vacancies, emphasizing the importance of adhering to previous court directions.
Result: The writ petition stands disposed of with directions for appointment consideration.
ORDER :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
1. Heard Ms. U. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned standing counsel, Health Department appearing for respondents no. 4, 5 and 6.
2. The petitioner in the present proceedings has raised a grievance with regard to the denial to him his due appointment in terms of his selection against a Grade-IV post included in the Special Recruitment Drive carried out by the respondent authorities for filling up of 662 backlog vacancies in different Government Departments for persons with benchmark disabilities in the year 2005.
3. The petitioner being eligible has submitted his candidature in pursuance to a notice issued by the Directorate of Social Welfare, Assam in the year 2005 for filing up of 662 vacancies in Grade-IV post for persons with benchmark disabilities. The petitioner had applied against the category of Visually Impaired. On being successful in the selection process his name figured in the select list against the post so available under the various establishments of the Director of Health Services, Assam. The petitioner was placed against the post identified for persons with Visual Impairment. Appointments from the said selection list were being made, however, the petitioner not being considered for such appointment and the representations submitted by him in this connection having not been responded to, the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C)/3652/2012. This Court vide order dated 02.08.2012, proceeded to direct the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner in the matter by way of passing a speaking order. The Director of Social Welfare, Assam, thereafter convened a meeting and therein in the presence of the petitioner, representatives of the Director of Health Services, Assam, it was concluded that the Grade-IV posts involved in the recruitment process as initiated in the year 2005 was available in the establishment of the Joint Director of Health Services, Sonitpur and the petitioner could be adjusted against the same, however, it was noted that the validity of the select list having expired on 31.07.2011, the appointment of the petitioner could not be so effected. The petitioner thereafter has instituted the present proceedings and has highlighted that even after 31.07.2011, appointments were being made in terms of the selection process initiated in the year 2005.
4. The matter was taken up for hearing and this Court on noticing that even after the validity of the select list had expired on 31.07.2011, appointments were being made against the posts involved in the selection process as initiated in the year 2005, had required the respondents to place on record the necessary clarifications in this direction.
5. Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned standing counsel for the Health & Family Welfare Department, Assam had placed on record copies of the order dated 06.12.2016 and 30.01.2017, by which the appointments were effected in the case of persons with benchmark disability, who had participated in the selection process as initiated in the year 2005. Vide order dated 06.12.2016 as many as 45 persons belonging to various categories came to be appointed under the various establishments coming under the purview of the Director of Health Services, Assam while 4 persons were so appointed vide the order dated 30.01.2017 under the Joint Director of Health Services, Kokrajhar, which falls under the control of the Bodoland Territorial Council.
6. On perusal of the order dated 06.12.2016, it is seen that the same was so passed in compliance of an order dated 23.04.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C)1424/2011 (Shri Bhupen Bhuyan & 105 Ors. V. State of Assam & Ors.)
7. A perusal of the said order dated 23.04.2015, passed by this Court in the case of Bhupen Bhuyan (Supra), it is seen that persons similarly situated
