Disposed

Japhed Dhan and 17 Ors. v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2019WP(C)/2120/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged rejection of applications for Railway Protection Force posts due to missing additional photos. The Court found arbitrariness in the rejection process and directed a de novo selection process, including written, physical, and trade tests, to be completed within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to railway authorities to conduct de novo written, physical efficiency, and trade tests for petitioners within six months.

Japhed Dhan and 17 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 8… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010012532016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2120/2016

¶5

1:JAPHED DHAN and 17 ORS

¶6

S/O SHRI JOYMON DHAN, VILL. NOZPUR, P.O. KOKCHABARI, PIN-784165, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶7

2: RATUL DEKA S/O SRI DEBEN DEKA VILL. MEDHI KUCHI P.O. TEPESIA PIN-782402 DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

¶8

3: GOMSAR BORO S/O SRI JOGEN BORO VILL. AMGURI P.O. SILIKHABARI PIN-784149 DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM 4: ELIAS PRODHAN S/O SRI LOREN PRODHAN VILL. TARAJULI TE P.O. RANGAPARA PIN-784505 DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM

¶9

5: PRATAP NAG S/O SOUL NAG VILL. TARAJULI TE P.O. RANGAPARA PIN-784505 DIST- SONITPUR

¶10

Page No.# 2/8

¶11

ASSAM

¶12

6: GULAM NABI AZAD S/O KASIM ANSARI VILL. DHULAPADUNG P.O. THAKURBARI PIN-784505 DSIT- SONITPUR ASSAM 7: GANESH UPADHAYA SRI ACHUT UPADHAYA VILL. DHEKIPELOWA BENGALI GAON P.O. GORUBANDHA PIN-784506 DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM

¶13

8: DINESH BORO S/O LT. MADHU RAM BORO VILL. BAGHMARA P.O. ULLUBARI PIN-784149 DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM

¶14

9: RASHMI REKHA DAIMARI D/O SRI BIPUL DAIMARI VILL. BAGHMARA P.O. ULLUBARI PIN-784149 DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM

¶15

10: PRANJAL DAIMARI S/O SRI BIPUL DAIMARI VILL. BAGHMARA P.O. ULLUBARI PIN-784149 DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM

¶16

11: BANAJIT TALUKDAR S/O SRI BHABEN TALUKDAR VILL. RADHAKUCHI P.O. KARARA PIN-781381 DIST- KAMRUP RURAL

¶17

Page No.# 3/8

¶18

ASSAM

¶19

12: KAUSIK DALAL S/O SHRI SANKAR DALAL C/O PROBIR DALAL QTR. NO.22A EAST GOSALA NEAR SHANI MANDIR MALIGAON GHY-11 DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 13: LINA DEKA D/O SRI HAREN DEKA VILL. NAGAON P.O. PUTHIMARI PIN-781380 DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 14: BHASWATI KALITA D/O SRI ATUL KALITA VILL. RAIPAT P.O. PANITIMA PIN-781101 DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM 15: KESHOR BARWHA S/O SRI ANIL BARWHA VILL. TARAJULI TE P.O. RANGAPARA PIN-784505 DSIT- SONITPUR ASSAM 16: ANIL RAWTIA S/O SRI BHAJOO RAWTIA VILL. TARAJULI TE P.O. RANGAPARA PIN-784505 DIST- SONITPUR ASSAM 17: AMARENDRA SARMA S/O SRI BHABEN SARMA VILL. RADHAKUCHI P.O. KARARA

¶20

Page No.# 4/8

¶21

PIN-781381 DIST- KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM

¶22

18: KURSED ALAM S/O ISHAK AHMED VILL. NAMONIGAON P.O. RANGAPARA PIN-784505 DIST- SONITPUR ASSA

¶23

VERSUS

¶24

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS

¶25

REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-01

¶26

2:THE RAILWAY BOARD REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN RAIL BHAWAN RAFI MARG NEW DELHI-1

¶27

3:THE RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL RAIL BHAWAN RAFI MARG NEW DELHI-1

¶28

4:NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER MALIGAON GHY-11

¶29

5:THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RPF NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GHY-11

¶30

6:BROADWEB TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR 279- KONA ROAD SASTITALA HAWRA WEST BENGAL PIN-711104

¶31

Page No.# 5/8

¶32

THROUGH THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RPF NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY MALIGAON GHY-1

¶33

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D UPAMANYA

¶34

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S C BISWAS

¶35

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Date : 09-12-2019

¶38

Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel for the railway authorities and Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

¶39

The Employment Notice No.01/2013 was issued by the Chief Security Commissioner/RPSF Coordinating Nodal CSC Railway Board inviting application from eligible male and female candidates for filling up the posts of ancillary staff in different trades in the pay band of Rs.5200-20200/- + grade pay 2000 in the Railway Protection Force including the Railway Protection Special Force. The number of vacancies provided in the employment notice is as follows:-

¶40

Trades	Unreserved	OBC	SC	ST	Total
Constable	205	99	67	35	406
(Water
Carrier)
Constable	60	43	6	8	117
(Safaiwala)

¶41

Page No.# 6/8

¶42

Constable	32	14	3	4	53
(Washer man)
Constable	36	12	9	4	61
Barbar
Constable	4	2	0	1	7
Mali
Constable	6	2	1	0	9
Tailor
Constable	2	3	1	0	6
Cobbler
Total					659

¶43

Clause - 4 of the employment notice provided the eligibility conditions. Clause-5 provided for the method of recruitment.

¶44

The method of recruitment provided that there would be a written examination of 120 multiple choice objective type questions of one mark each which would be of 90 minutes duration and would comprise of 35 questions on general intelligence and reasoning, 35 questions on arithmetic and 50 questions on general awareness. The eligibility requirement of written test was 35% marks and 30% in case of SC/ST candidates. The question papers were required to have been set in different languages as provided in the employment notice itself and the applicants were required to indicate the language in which they desired to appear. After the written test, amongst the successful candidates, a physical efficiency test was to be conducted comprising of various events and also a trade test comprising of 50 marks. The 4^th stage of the selection process included document verification and the 5^th stage provided for certain bonus marks of maximum 5 marks for the various criterias provided therein. As provided in

¶45

Page No.# 7/8

¶46

the employment notice, the written test was held on 15.02.2015. Before the written test was held, the respondent authorities issued a procedure for recruitment in the RPF which was called Directive-34 and was dated 07.01.2015.

¶47

In any view of the matter, the respondent authorities had outsourced the scrutiny of the applications to the respondent No.6 namely, Broadweb Technologies Private Limited of Kolkata. The petitioners herein had made a specific assertion that out of 20,203 applications that were submitted from the State of Assam, including the petitioners 18761 applications stood rejected and only 1442 were found to be valid. We have to understand that the aforesaid scrutiny resulting in the exclusion of the applications were made by the respondent No.6.

¶48

Although it is sought to be stated by the parties that the scrutiny of the applications were influenced by the Directive-34, but considering the fact that the written examination was held on 15.02.2015 and the Directive-34 was issued on 07.01.2015, it would be difficult to conclude as to what extent the contents of the Directive-34 had played its role in the scrutiny of the applications. But if the Directive-34 contains certain additional eligibility requirement or the requirement of submitting any further document, which were not provided in the Employment Notice No.1/2013, and the candidates had submitted their application form on the basis of the requirement of Employment Notice No.1/2013, we can safely take a view that rejecting any application based upon any such further requirement of Directive-34 would be arbitrary and unreasonable.

¶49

But in any view of the matter, the respondent railway authorities have filed affidavit-inopposition dated 27.07.2016, wherein, in paragraph-6, the status of the present 18 petitioners were provided. From the remarks column providing for the reasons of rejecting the application of the writ petitioners, we find that except for the petitioners No.11, 12 and 17 the other applications were rejected on the ground of non enclosure of three additional photos along with the application form. But application of the petitioners, namely Banajit Talukdar, Kausik Dalal and Amarendra Sarma were rejected by stating that their applications were not received. When we look into the eligibility requirement and other requirements of the Employment Notice No.1/2013 it is noticed that under Clause 11 (xiv) an application may be rejected for non enclosure of additional photos. But again the notice nowhere states as to how many additional photos are to be enclosed. We take note of that Clause-11 provides that applications may be rejected for non enclosure of additional documents, which again is directory and not mandatory, but defect can easily be construed to be a curable defect where the applicant can be asked for to provide the additional photos.

¶50

Page No.# 8/8

¶51

Be that as it may, by the order dated 30.08.2019, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel was appointed as a commission of advocate to scrutinize the voluminous records containing the applications that were produced by the respondent authorities and upon such examination, to submit a report thereof. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel with great effort after going through the applications submitted a report dated 09.12.2019. From the report, it is noticed that in respect of some of the petitioners, the original applications revealed that the additional photographs were not included. We have already noted as per the affidavit of the respondent authorities, the applications were rejected for not providing three additional photographs.

¶52

The report of the learned commission also provides that in respect of atleast some of candidates the authorities had accepted their application forms although three copies of additional photographs were not enclosed.

¶53

In the circumstance, Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel makes an offer that as the rejection of the application of the petitioners involved some amount of arbitrariness and unreasonableness, the railway authorities are willing to accept the candidature of the petitioners for giving them a fresh consideration and allow them to sit in a selection process which would be similar to the procedure and requirement of the Employment Notice No.1/2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner also accept the offer of the learned senior counsel.

¶54

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the respondent railway authorities shall conduct a de novo written test for the petitioners in the manner required in the Employment Notice No. 1/2013 and also subject them to the required physical efficiency test and trade test as provided in the said Employment Notice No.1/2013 and upon carrying out such exercise, take a reasoned decision on the acceptability of their candidature for the appointment to the concerned posts. The required exercise be done within a period of 6 (six) months from today. For the purpose, the respondent railway authorities shall issue required call letters to the petitioners informing them the date and time of written test to be held.

¶55

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶56

Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

Comparing Assistant

Japhed Dhan and 17 Ors. v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Japhed Dhan and 17 Ors. v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti. Madhusmita Goswami Vs the State of Assam

Dewri Timung @ Dharmeswar Timung and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Nurul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Arup Jyoti Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Arup Jyoti Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Abu Bakkar Siddique and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.