Disposed

Prafulla Basumatary and 4 Ors. v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Sept 2019WP(C)/6336/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners aggrieved by being barred from a written examination for government posts due to lack of certified experience. The Court ordered a reconstituted committee to verify actual experience, arrange a separate exam for eligible excluded candidates, defer the existing results, and consolidate lists.

What did the court decide?

Reconstituted committee to verify experience; separate examination arranged for eligible excluded candidates; existing results deferred; consolidated list to be declared within 3 months.

Prafulla Basumatary and 4 Ors. Vs the Assam Power… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010129112019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 6336/2019

¶5

1:PRAFULLA BASUMATARY AND 4 ORS.

¶6

S/O- NIBARON BASUMATARY, VILL- JANAKPUR, P.O- URIAMGHAT, DISTGOLAGHAT, ASSAM

¶7

2: KUMUD BORO S/O- HARI CHARAN BORO R/O- VILL- TAMULPUR P.O- URIAMGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM

¶8

3: MONI TAMULY S/O- PADMESWAR TAMULY R/O- VILL- GOHAIN GAON P.O- KAMARBANDHA DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM

¶9

4: GUNIN TAMULY S/O- PUSPA TAMULY R/O- VILL- GOHAIN GAON P.O- KAMARBANDHA DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM

¶10

5: RASHMIREKHA PHUKON D/O- LATE HOREN PHUKON R/O- EAST AMOLAPATTY P.O- GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHA

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

1:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 4 ORS REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN APDCL, BIJULEE BHAWAN, GHY- 01

¶14

2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN

¶15

3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HRA APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN

¶16

4:THE CEO GOLAGHAT ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL GOLAGHAT ASSAM

¶17

5:THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER GOLAGHAT/BOKAKHAT/SARUPATHAR/KAMARGAON ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION APDCL GOLAGHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSA

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 02-09-2019

¶24

Heard Mr B K Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms R Deka, learned counsel for Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL).

¶25

Matter relates to selection for appointment to the post of Sahayak and Office –cum- Field

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

Assistant under APDCL. Though petitioners had applied pursuant to advertisement dated 14.08.2018, they were not allowed to appear in the written examination held on 28.04.2019 on the ground of lack of experience in terms of the advertisement.

¶28

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court dated 27.08.2019, passed in WP(C) No. 187 of 2019 and other connected cases.

¶29

Order dated 27.08.2019 is extracted hereunder:-

¶30

“ This order will dispose of WP(C) Nos. WP(C) Nos.2643, 187, 525, 1337, 1712, 2091, 2460, 2502, 2529, 2555, 2558, 2573, 2649, 2653, 2654, 2656, 2697, 2698, 2699, 2704, 2813, 2919, 2928, 2929, 2983, 2996, 3000, 3088, 3090, 3103, 3310, 3372, 3413, 3430, 3536, 3649, 3839, 3850, 3876 and 3899/2019.

¶31

Heard Mr. H Bezbaruah; Mr. BP Borah; Mr. SSS Rahman; Mr. PG Bhagawati; Mr. M Bhagabati; Mr. SP Choudhury; Mr. A Ganguli; Mr. I Choudhury; Mr. NH Laskar; Mr. S Borthakur; Mr. BK Das; Mr. A Bhattacharyya; Mr. RK Talukdar; Md. MS Ali; Mr. NN Jha; Mr. TA Choudhury; Mr. A Gogoi; Ms. M Baruah; and Mr. S K Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. SS Roy, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. HK Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APDCL).

¶32

In all the writ petitions, grievance expressed by the petitioners relates to not allowing them to participate in the selection process for recruitment to the posts of Office-cum-Field Assistant, Sahayak and Mali pursuant to advertisement dated 14.08.2018, issued by APDCL and two of its sister companies, namely, Assam Electricity Grid Corporation (AEGCL) and Assam Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (APGCL).

¶33

By the aforesaid advertisement dated 14.08.2018, applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment in the three companies to the posts of Office-cum-Field Assistant, Sahayak and Mali. For all the three posts, besides essential educational qualifications prescribed, experience was also prescribed. Post-wise experience prescribed is as under: -

¶34

“ Office-cum-Field Assistant :

¶35

Experience : Contractual workers under direct employment of APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL and any other power sector PSU, engaged in meter reading, bill preparing, bill dispatching, data entering & typing & who have rendered service for not less than a minimum period of 5 (five) years as on 01.01.2018, on the condition that the concerned Head of the establishment/controlling authority not below the rank of CEO/DGM/SE, would certify the eligibility of 5 (five) years or 1780 days of engagement in APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL, in last 7 (seven) years.

¶36

Sahayak:

¶37

Experience : Contractual workers under direct employment of APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL, and any other power sector PSU, engaged as Sahayak & who have rendered service for not less than a minimum

¶38

Page No.# 4/5

¶39

period of 5 (five) years as on 01.01.2018, on the condition that the concerned Head of the establishment/controlling authority not below the rank of CEO/DGM/SE, would certify the eligibility of 5 (five) years or 1780 days of engagement in APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL in last 7 (seven) years.

¶40

Mali:

¶41

Experience : Contractual workers under direct employment of APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL, and any other power sector PSU, engaged in gardening services & who have rendered service for not less than a minimum period of 5 (five) years as on 01.01.2018, on the condition that the concerned Head of the establishment/controlling authority not below the rank of CEO/DGM/SE, would certify the eligibility of 5 (five) years or 1780 days of engagement in APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL in last 7 (seven) years.”

¶42

Petitioners have contended that they fulfilled the aforesaid experience criteria and had responded to the said advertisement. On 07.09.2018, a notice was published notifying the candidates shortlisted for the written examination. In the said list, names of the petitioners were not included and consequently, no admit card was issued to them to enable them to appear in the written examination. Aggrieved, writ petitions have been filed.

¶43

In all the cases, this Court while issuing notice, had passed interim orders to the effect that petitioners may be allowed to take part in the recruitment process but the result may not be declared without the leave of the Court.

¶44

In the hearing today what has transpired is that while in many cases, petitioners were allowed to appear in the written examination, in quite a few, petitioners were not allowed to appear in the written examination.

¶45

On a query by the Court, Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL submits that those petitioners, who had obtained interim orders from this Court prior to the written examination or at least produced the same before the commencement of the written examination, were allowed to sit in the written examination. Mr. Sarma has also produced a copy of office order dated 24.08.2019, passed by the Chief General manager (HRA), APDCL whereby the committee which was earlier constituted on 13.03.2019 to examine and find out the actual experienced outsourced workers in the primary posts of MR, BC, BD, MRBD, Computer Operator and Sahayak backed by official record of payment of wages by the three companies has been reconstituted because of superannuation/promotion/change of assignment of the committee members. The reconstituted committee now comprises of 10members. As per the said office order, the reconstituted committee shall submit its report to the Managing Director, APDCL within 15 days.

¶46

On a further query by the Court, Mr. Sarma submits that written examination was held on 28.04.2019 but results could not be declared because of the interim orders of this Court.

¶47

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, Court is of the view that the following directions may be issued which will meet the ends of justice: -

¶48

Page No.# 5/5

¶49

1. The reconstituted committee shall examine and find out the actual experience of the outsourced workers including that of the petitioners in terms of the office order dated 24.08.2019;

¶50

2. Those applicants who are found to be eligible as per the experience criteria in terms of the advertisement and who could not appear in the written examination, a separate written examination shall be arranged for such candidates. Those who had appeared in the written examination need not appear again;

¶51

3. The result of the written examination already conducted on 28.04.2019 should not be declared now and should await completion of the separate examination of those found eligible by the Committee;

¶52

Thereafter results of both the examinations should be combined and a consolidated select list should be declared;

¶53

5.The above exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶54

6.If any applicant has any further grievance relating to non-suitability on the ground of experience etc., it will be open to him/her to avail his/her legal remedy in accordance with law.

¶55

Ordered accordingly.

¶56

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶57

All the writ petitions are disposed of.”

¶58

In view of above, present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the directions as extracted above.

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

Comparing Assistant

Prafulla Basumatary and 4 Ors. v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Basumatary and 4 Ors. v. the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 4 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

M/S. S.S. Enterprise and Anr. Vs the Airports Authority of India and 2 Ors.

Anjalee Das Vs M/S. Quantum Developer and Anr.

Azmina Ahmed Vs the Commanding Officer and 6 Ors.

Apurba Talukdar Vs Thaneswar Malakar, I.A.S. and Anr.

Anjuara Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Kameswar Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.