A writ petition disputing the selection process for Enforcement Inspector posts, alleging failure to adhere to the roster for reserved categories, was dismissed as devoid of merit due to delay and a joint affidavit from respondents clarifying the matter.
This writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010216472011
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2333/2011
1:SANKUDEV BARUAH
S/O- LT. DEBESWAR KALITA BARUAH, R/O- HOUSE NO. 3, SURYA NAGAR, BONGAL PUKHURI, JORHAT- 785001, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY., TRANSPORT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6
2:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6
3:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GHY- 22
4:THE DEPUTY SECY ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GHY- 22
6:RAJIV ENGTI
Page No.# 2/4
7:NITU CHETIA
8:MANOJ KR. BASUMATARY
9:DHAJEN BASUMATARY ALL ARE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTORS C/O- OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT ASSAM DISPUR GHY-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MRU S BORGOHAIN
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
03.10.2018
Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Ms. D. D. Barman, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears for the remaining respondents.
The writ petitioner herein had participated in a selection process initiated by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for filling up three vacant posts of Enforcement Inspector on the basis of the advertisement notice dated 22.10.2008. After the conclusion of the selection process, a select list was published by the respondent No.3 where the petitioner’s name did not figure. It appears that subsequently, five persons i.e. the respondent Nos.5 to 9 were appointed in the post of Enforcement Inspector. After the expiry of the validity of the select list
Page No.# 3/4
and the orders of appointments were issued to the respondent Nos.5 to 9 the instant writ petition had been filed inter-alia alleging that the authorities have failed to fill up the vacancies meant for reserved category candidates by properly following the roster as a result of which, right of the petitioner has to be prejudiced.
The respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed a joint affidavit in this case clarifying the matter. The statements made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 would be relevant and is therefore, reproduced herein below:-
“ 5) That, with regard to statement made in Para 2 to 9 of the Writ Petition it is replied that in pursuance of Govt. of Assam, Transport Department’s draft advertisement furnished vide letter No.TMV.361/90/Pt-II/66 dated 23.06.2008 and No.TMV.361/90/PtIII/12 dated 7.8.2008, the advertisement No.9/08 vide letter No.231 PSC/DR-5/1/2000-2001 dated 22.10.2008 was issued by the A.P.S.C. inviting application from Indian citizens for filling up of various posts under different Department including 3(three) posts of Enforcement Inspector under Transport Department (2– posts reserved for STP and 1–post reserved for General Category candidates). The educational qualification prescribed for the post was a Degree in Arts, Science or Commerce of a University recognized by the Govt. of Assam or HSSLC with 3 (three) years Diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering from an Institution recognized by Govt. of Assam/ Govt. of India and also by AICTE. Later, Government in Transport Department further increased another 2(two) posts, 1(one) for STH and 1(one) for OBC/MOBC vide Govt. letter No.TMV.247/2003/312 dated 6.11.2008 and accordingly A.P.S.C. issued Corrigendum vide letter No.14PSC/DR-14/1/2008-2009 dated 20.11.2008. Altogether 239
Page No.# 4/4
candidates were interviewed by the Commission with the help of Expert/ Advisors deputed by the Govt. and 5 candidates were recommended in order of merit category wise which was recommended to the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Transport Department vide A.P.S.C.’s letter No.84PSC/DR14/1/2008-2009 dated 17.02.2010.
It is noteworthy that the writ petition was filed on 26.04.2011. As such the petitioner challenged Commission’s recommendation, after the expiry of validity of the Commission’s recommendation list as per provision of Para 6(ii) of the Assam Transport Service Rules, 2003.”
The writ petitioner has not even denied or disputed the assertions made
by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as quoted above. If that be so, I am of the view that nothing survives in this writ petition at this stage for adjudication by this Court. Moreover, I find that there is no explanation as to why the writ petitioner
had approached this Court after a delay of nearly two years from the date of publication of the select list.
For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner suffered any prejudice due to the alleged failure of authorities to fill reserved category vacancies and seek redress for the same.
SANKUDEV BARUAH
THE STATE OF ASSAM
THE COMMISSIONER and SECY., TRANSPORT DEPTT.
THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT ASSAM
THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THE DEPUTY SECY ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
SUMAN SHYAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
