GAHC010215712024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WP(C)/5465/2024

with

WP(C) 6679/2024

KANAK BARMAN

S/O LATE DHARMESWAR BARMAN, R/O VILL- BELSOR, NO. 2 SINGIMARI,

MALBARI, P.O. AND P.S.-BELSOR, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781304

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,

DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI PIN-781006

3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

IMPLEMENT OF ASSAM ACCORD DEPARTMENT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI PIN-781006

4:THE DIRECTOR

WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT

ASSAM

UZANBAZAR

GUWAHATI PIN-781001

5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NALBARI DIST-NALBARI ASSAM PIN-78133 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A V SINGH, MR P TALUKDAR,MR W R MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER

24-11-2025

1. Heard Mr. W.R.Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, learned counsel as well as Ms. U. Sarma, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents.

2. The petitioners claim that they belong to a family, a member of which had been rendered physically disabled on account of participation in the Assam Movement on the issue of foreigners.

3. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners also hold necessary certificates issued by the District Commissioner of the concerned districts and that they come within the definition of “Affected Candidate” in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Assam Public Service (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999.

4. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the petitioners made applications before the Secretary as well as the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Social Welfare Department, claiming appointment to Government service on preferential basis, however, nothing has been done. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are filed.

5. Prayer made in these two petitions is for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners in any Grade-III or Grade-IV posts of the Assam Government as per the aforesaid Rules, 1999.

6. Ms. Sarma, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, on the other hand, contends that having regard to the prayer, the writ petitions are mis-conceived, inasmuch as, the prayer so made has no nexus to the scheme propounded in the aforesaid Rules

1999.

7. Referring to Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the said Rules, Ms. Sarma contends that what the Rules actually provide is that when any recruitment process is initiated for filling up posts under the Government of Assam, an ‘Affected Candidate’, who is otherwise eligible under the normal Rules and all things remaining the same, be given preference in securing appointment.

8. It is also contended that in the Explanation appended to Rule 4, the expression “who is otherwise eligible under the normal Rules” is defined to mean ‘Affected Candidate’ whose name is included within the range of three times of the number of vacancies in the result sheet of the candidates arranged in order of merit.

9. Referring to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4, it is further contended that in the event an ‘Affected Candidate’ makes application for any post claiming preferential treatment, it would be mandatory to enclose therewith a certificate from the District Commissioner concerned in support of the fact that he is an ‘Affected Candidate’ within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the Rules of 1999.

10. For a better appreciation, the relevant provisions of Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1999, as applicable in the present cases, specifying the parameters relating to making of application and for securing preference, the same are reproduced hereunder:

“3. Application- These rules shall apply to all the services and posts under the Government of Assam, recruitment to which are made through the Assam Public Service Commission or otherwise than through the Assam Publ