GAHC010137752018

2026:GAU-AS:84

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/4280/2018 SADIKUL ALOM LASKAR

S/O- LUKMAN UDDIN LASKAR, VILL- KHADIMAN, P.O- BADARPUR GHAT,

DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788803

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE(A), DEPTT, DISPUR, GHY- 06

2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

ASSAM

HENGRABARI

GUWAHATI- 781036

CUM CHAIRMAN

SELECTION COMMITTEE OF GRADE IV

WARD BOY

NIGHT CHOWKIDAR

ETC

HEALTH SERVICES

ASSAM

3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

KARIMGANJ

P.O AND DIST- KARIMGANJ

ASSAM

PIN- 78871

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHOUDHURY, MR S ISLAM,MR. A K TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH,

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

05/01/2026 Heard Mr. A K Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B Bora, learned Standing counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department.

2. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner, who is a person with benchmark disability, although, had participated in the selection process in pursuance to an advertisement dated 16.12.2017, he was not recommended for appointment against the post advertised.

3. The petitioner in pursuance to an advertisement dated 16.12.2017 issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam had submitted his application for appointment against the posts of Ward Boy and Night Chowkidar as advertised. The petitioner had along with his application submitted a disability certificate issued to him by the competent authority.

4. It is to be noted that vide the said advertisement, 3% of the posts available were reserved for persons with benchmark physical disability. The application of the petitioner being found to be confirming to the eligibility criteria setout in the said advertisement, he was allowed to participate in the selection process. The petitioner participated in the written examination. Thereafter, the select list was published on 17.05.2018 and therein, the name of the petitioner not figuring, he has instituted the present writ petition.

5. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed that his case be directed to be considered against a post falling within the 3% reserved post for physically disabled persons. 6. Mr. A K Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that it is not disputed that the petitioner is a person with disability. The petitioner had participated in the selection process and he was entitled to be considered for appointment against the advertised post for which he had submitted his application.

Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities without assigning any reason had proceeded to deny to the petitioner his due appointment against the post reserved for persons with benchmark disability vide the advertisement in question.

Accordingly, in the above premises, Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a direction be issued by this Court to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner against any one of the posts reserved for persons with benchmark disability.

7. Per contra, Ms. B Bora, learned Standing counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department submits that the petitioner, although, had participated in the selection process, he did not qualify in the written examination. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner was not considered for the further stages of the recruitment process. The petitioner not having cleared the written examination, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment even against the post reserved for persons with disability in the recruitment process in question. She further submits that 3% posts kept reserved for persons with disability have been filled up by appointing candidates found suitable on merits in the said recruitment process.

8. I have heard the learned