Allowed

Jayanta Talukdar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Mar 2019WP(C)/2355/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of application for appointment under die in harness scheme. Court held authorities did not satisfy themselves regarding vacancy in other departments as required by office memo. Disposed with direction to re-examine claim at next DLC meeting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be placed before the concerned District Level Committee at the next meeting for examination of claim for appointment under die in harness scheme.

Jayanta Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010013472016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2355/2016

¶5

1:JAYANTA TALUKDAR

¶6

S/O LT. BHABENDRA NATH TALUKDAR, R/O VILL- AND P.O. KAKAYA, P.S. BELSOR, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, A.H. and VETERINARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR A.H. and VETERINAARY DEPARTMENT ASSAM GUWAHATI-3.

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NALBARI CHAIRMAN OF DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE NALBARI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN - 781359.

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY and VETERINARY OFFICER NALBARI PIN - 781359.

¶13

5:SMTI. BARASA DEVI D/O LT. PRADIP SARMA P.O. NALBARI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN - 781359

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRA BARMAN

¶15

Page No.# 2/2

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAMR1-4

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 13-03-2019

¶20

Heard Dr. P.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had submitted an application for appointment under die in harness scheme which has been rejected by the concerned DLC in their meeting held on 13.07.2012 on the ground of non-availability of vacancy. Though, the authorities are entitled to reject any application on the ground of lack of availability of vacancy, the authorities before doing so, has to be satisfied that there is no vacancy available in the other department as required to be done so, in terms of the OM.NO.ABP.50/2006/Pt/182 dt.01.06.2015 under Para-15. In the present case, the same has not been done.

¶22

In that view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner for appointment under die in harness scheme by taking into consideration para-15 of the aforesaid OM, which exercise shall be undertaken by placing the case of the petitioner in next concerned DLC meeting.

¶23

With the above direction, petition stands disposed of.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Jayanta Talukdar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanta Talukdar v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Assam Forest Service (Class-I) Association and Anr. Vs Ashok Lavasa and 13 Ors.

Assam Forest Service Class-I Association and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Ranjan Adhikary Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Shyamali Sarkar Vs Biren Bhattacharyya and 2 Ors.

Mahesh Barkataki Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ramendra Narayan Barman Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.