Dismissed

Kusha Das and 22 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Sept 2019WP(C)/3358/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a recruitment written test. The court held the petition had no merit due to vague averments, lack of complaint to invigilators, inability to rely on newspaper reports, and the significant delay in filing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of the written test held on 28.04.2019 and for a direction to hold an inquiry was rejected.

Kusha Das and 22 Ors. Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010114342019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 3358/2019

¶5

1:KUSHA DAS AND 22 ORS.

¶6

C/O SRI BABUL DAS, VILL. BAMUNDI, P.O. BAMUNDI, P.S. SUALKUCHI, PIN-781103

¶7

2: DHANMONI DAS VILL. KULHATI P.O. KULHATI P.S. HOJO PIN-781104

¶8

3: RINKU KALITA VILL. BAMUNDI P.O. BAMUNDI P.S. SUALKUCHI PIN-781103

¶9

4: KRISHNA KALITA C/O BHUPEN CH. KALITA VILL. BAMUNDI P.O. BAMUNDI P.S. BAMUNDI PIN-781103

¶10

5: RITUMONI DAS D/O SIR BASUDEV DAS VILL. AND P.O. KULHATI P.S. HAJO PIN-781104

¶11

Page No.# 2/8

¶12

6: DHITASHRI BAISHYA C/O LT. AMULYA BAISHYA VILL. SUALKUCHI P.O ROAD P.O. SUALKUCHI P.S. SUALKUCHI PIN-781103

¶13

7: HIMANGSHU BAISHYA C/O LT. AMULYA BAISHYA VILL. SUALKUCHI P.O. ROAD P.O.AND P.S- SUALKUCHI PIN-781103

¶14

8: DHIRAJ BAISHYA C/O KANDARPA BAISHYA VILL. SUALKUCHI HARIPUR P.O. SUALKUCHI P.S. SUALKUCHI PIN-781103

¶15

9: JAYANTA SARMA C/O LT. KANAK SARMA VILL. AND P.O. BIHAMPUR P.S. BELSOR DIST.-NALBARI PIN-781303

¶16

10: DIMPAL BARMAN S/O GOPAL BARMAN VILL. BHOJKUCHI P.O.- BHOJKUCHI P.S. TIHU DIST. NALBARI PIN-781374

¶17

11: KULDEEP THAKURIA S/O GOPAL THAKURIA VILL. AND P.O. BHOJKUCHI P.S.TIHU DIST.- NALBARI PIN-781374

¶18

Page No.# 3/8

¶19

12: SURAJ BHATTA S/O HEM BHATTA VILL. AND P.O. MAKHIBAHA DIST.-NALBARI PIN-781374

¶20

13: MANAS JYOTI BAISHYA C/O SURJYA KANTA BAISHYA VILL. PACHARIA (MILANPUR) P.O. PACHARIA P.S. HAJO DIST.-KAMRUP (R) PIN-781104

¶21

14: BANAJIT TALUKDAR C/O BHABEN TALUKDAR VILL. RADHAKUCHI P.O. KARARA P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST.-KAMRUP (R) PIN-781381

¶22

15: SAROJ KR. CHOUDHURY S/O LT. HARENDRA CHOUDHURY VILL. BARMAKHIBAHA P.O. MAKHIBAHA P.S. TIHU DIST.-NALBARI PIN-781374

¶23

16: CHANDAN DAS C/O SRI JAGAT CH. DAS VILL. GEETANAGAR (ADARANIPATH) P.O. AND P.S. NOONMATI DIST.-KAMRUP (M) PIN-781020

¶24

17: BIDYUT SARMA S/O LT. RABINDRA NATH SARMA VILL. KATPUHA P.O. ULUBARI P.S. NALBARI

¶25

Page No.# 4/8

¶26

DIST.-NALBARI PIN-781339

¶27

18: JYOTIRMOY SARMAH S/O BHUPENDRA SARMAH VILL. BHOGPUR P.S. BHOGPUR P.S. PATACHARKUCHI DIST.-BARPETA PIN-781329

¶28

19: GOBINDA GOSWAMI S/O LT. JOGENDRA GOSWAMI VILL. SANDHELI P.O. HARIBHANGA DIST.-NALBARI PIN-781378

¶29

20: BHASKARJYOTI HALOI S/O SATISH CHANDRA HALOI VILL. AND P.O. PIPALIBARI P.S. BELSOR DIST.-NALBARI PIN-781338

¶30

21: UDIT NARAYAN SWARGIARY S/O LT. DIMBESWAR SWARGIARY VILL. KALJAR P.O. BARAMA P.S. BARAMA DIST.-BAKSA PIN-78134

¶31

VERSUS

¶32

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶33

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPTT. D BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

¶34

2:CHAIRMAN ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED 4TH FLOOR BIJULI BHAWAN

¶35

Page No.# 5/8

¶36

PALTAN BAZAR GUWHATI-781001 ASSAM

¶37

3:MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED 4TH FLOOR BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWHATI-781001 ASSAM

¶38

4:CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE-B BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI-78100

¶39

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T DAS

¶40

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶41

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Date : 10-09-2019

¶44

None appears for the petitioners on call though Mr. HK Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL) is present.

¶45

This matter has been listed on being mentioned by learned Standing Counsel, APDCL on the ground that issue raised in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court.

¶46

In this writ petition, petitioners seek quashing of the written test held on 28.04.2019 and further seek a direction for holding inquiry with regard to alleged anomalies during the written test by Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of Assam Police.

¶47

Matter pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Office-cum-Field Assistant, Sahayak and Mali under APDCL and two other sister companies pursuant to advertisement dated 14.08.2018.

¶48

Page No.# 6/8

¶49

According to the petitioners, they had responded to the said advertisement and applied for the said posts. Examination was conducted on 28.04.2019 in different examination centres as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. It is alleged that mobile phones were used by the candidates; against which the Invigilators did not take any steps. Allegation of leakage of question paper has also been made. In this connection, a public clarification of APDCL and the other two sister companies have been relied upon as per which eight mobile related incidents were detected in six districts of Nagaon, Dibrugarh, North Lakhimpur, Bongaigaon, Barpeta and Tinsukia; candidates involved in the incidents were expelled from the examination centres and FIRs were lodged; eight persons were arrested. It is in the above backdrop that the present writ petition has been filed.

¶50

It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that identical prayer was made in WP(C) No.6550/2019 (Ashraful Alom Ahmed Vs. State of Assam), which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2019. Relevant portion of the order dated 06.09.2019 is extracted hereunder: -

¶51

“ Be it stated that APDCL had issued advertisement dated 14.08.2018 for appointment to the posts of Assistant Account Officer; Office-cum-Field Assistant; Light vehicle Driver and Sahayak.

¶52

According to the petitioner, he responded to the aforesaid advertisement and submitted online application for the post of Office-cum-Field Assistant. He was called to appear in the written examination which was held on 28.04.2019. Petitioner appeared in the written examination. However, result has not yet been declared. Prayer for quashing the written examination has been made on the ground that petitioner had noticed that most of the candidate had entered into the examination hall alongwith their android mobile phones which they had used to find out answers to the questions. In this connection, a news item was published in the daily newspaper “Asomiya Pratidin” on 29.04.2019. The above two grounds are extracted hereunder:-

¶53

“ 6. That the petitioner begs to state that on being entered into examination hall, the petitioner noticed that most of the candidates came inside the examination hall along with their android mobile and moreover, they had used their android mobile phone in finding out the answers of the questions. Beside it, they used to collect the answer from outsider with the help of their android mobile phone and in this regard the petitioner and some others made complaint before the invigilator and guard of the examination hall but they did not respond towards the claim of the petitioner and some others. In this way various anomalies have been taken place in various examination halls.

¶54

Page No.# 7/8

¶55

That the petitioner begs to state that on the next day of written examination, a news item has been published in Daily Asomiya Pratidin in its edition dtd 29.04.2019 that the question paper of the aforesaid examination has been leaked in various centres throughout the state of Assam. Some of the invigilator as well as candidates were detained by the police. Moreover, the said news was also covered and telecasted in electronic media and it is open secret that in the written Test held by the respondents various anomalies have been taken place but the respondents kept silent of the same. It is necessary to mention herein that in various newspapers the illegal activities as committed in the written examination held on 28.04.2019 have been published.”

¶56

On a query by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had made oral complaint before the respondent authority but without any consequence. Averments in this regard made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition are extracted hereunder:-

¶57

“9 That the petitioner begs to state that the petitioner along with others made oral complaint before the respondent authorities regarding various anomalies and unfair means adopted by most of the candidates and verbally requested the respondents not to carry on further process of recruitment on the basis of the written test held on 28.04.2019 and also requested to held fresh written examination for recruitment of the post of Office cum field assistant. But nothing has done till date.”

¶58

Court is not at all inclined to entertain the writ petition for more than one reason. Firstly, the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition as extracted above are totally vague. Secondly, there is no averment to the effect that petitioner had brought to the notice of the Invigilator that such anomaly had taken place in the examination hall. Thirdly, Court would be extremely reluctant to rely on a newspaper report to initiate an action in law. Fourthly, nothing has been stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition as in what manner and before whom petitioner made oral complaint. That apart, written examination was held on 28.04.2019 whereas writ petition has been filed on 27.08.2019 after more than 4 months. For the aforesaid reasons, Court finds no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.”

¶59

Page No.# 8/8

¶60

In the light of the above and on due consideration, present writ petition is also dismissed.

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Biplab

¶63

Comparing Assistant

Kusha Das and 22 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusha Das and 22 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Das Vs Alok Kumar and 8 Ors.

Gitanjali Talukdar Choudhury Vs Juri Phukan, IAS

Bharat Charan Dalbehera Vs Rajiv Gauba and 3 Ors.

Apurba Kumar Kalita and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Rini Nath Borah Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Bonti Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.