ORDER

Date : 04-03-2021 Heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel.

2. The petitioner’s grievance is that despite being the second preferential candidate in pursuance to the selection process, for filling up the vacant post of Peon in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Dhemaji and the appointment of the first preferential candidate being cancelled due to the fact that she was over-qualified, the petitioner has not been appointed to the vacant post of Peon till date.

3. The brief facts of the case is that in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 22.05.2013, which called for filling up the vacant post of Peon in the establishment of the CJM, Dhemaji, the petitioner and one Ms. Minawati Buragohain Duwarah took part in the selection process. The eligibility criteria for appointment to the vacant post of Peon was that the candidate should be of minimum Xth standard and maximum XIIth standard.

4. Ms. Minawati Buragohain Duwarah, who was a graduate, was selected for appointment to the vacant post of Peon as the first preferential candidate, while the writ petitioner was selected as the second preferential candidate vide Order dated 03.07.2013 issued by the Selection Board. The Selection Board in the Order dated 03.07.2013 also resolved that the petitioner would be appointed in case the first preferential candidate failed or was disqualified “on the ground like police verification report and medical fitness certificate”.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment of the first preferential candidate, who was over-qualified in terms of the Advertisement dated 22.05.2013 filed WP(C) No. 6980/2013. This Court vide Judgment & Order dated 20.11.2018 disposed of WP(C) No. 6980/2013, holding that a candidate having qualification below the Xth standard and above the XIIth standard were ineligible for appointment to the vacant post of Peon. It also held that the first preferential candidate, who was the respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 6980/2013 had suppressed the fact that she was a graduate to secure the appointment. This Court thus held that the appointment of the first preferential candidate was in violation of the advertisement notice and as such, the respondents were directed to take appropriate action in the matter. In pursuance to the Judgment & Order dated 20.11.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 6980/2013, the office of the CJM, Dhemaji issued Order dated 25.01.2019 removing the first preferential candidate from service on account of being over-qualified. As the petitioner was not appointed to the vacant post of Peon, though he was the second preferential candidate in terms of the selection process held in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 22.05.2013, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has filed WP(C) No. 6980/2013 within 1 (one) year from the date of the appointment of the first preferential candidate and as the first preferential candidate has been disqualified from holding the vacant post of Peon, the petitioner should be appointed in the said vacant post.

7. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that once the first preferential candidate was appointed to the vacant post of Peon on 03.07.2013, the select list made in terms of the Order dated 03.07.2013 came to an end. He accordingly submits that a fresh selection would have to be undertaken to fill up the vacant post of Peon.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. It is seen that while the first preferential candidate, who was over-qualified had been appointed on 03.07.2013, the petitioner has filed WP(C) No. 6980/2013 on 28.11.2013. This Court, while holding that the first preferential candidate was appointed in violation of the Advertisement dated 22.05.2013 in its Judgment & Order dated 20.11.2018 pas