Petitioners challenged their non-selection as AB constables in Assam Police after a decade, claiming anomalies. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the claim was barred by laches and delay, noting the petitioners failed to raise grievances for over ten years and are deemed fence-sitters.
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
GAHC010220092019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 6780/2019
1:HAREN MILI AND ANR. S/O. DHARMESWAR MILI, R/O. VILL. AFALA, P.O. AFALA, DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN-785640, ROLL NO. 1548.
2: RATUL PANGING S/O. KUTCHAI PANGING VILL. AFALA P.O. AFALA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-785640 ROLL NO.1549
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07.
3:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TAP) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07.
4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN.) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI
Page No.# 2/4
GUWAHATI-07.
5:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE SIVASAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM
6:THE DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE (HQ) SIVASAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA O R D E R
04. 10. 2019
Heard Mr. S A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D Nath, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.
The petitioners are the candidates in a recruitment process initiated on the basis of an advertisement issued in the month of February, 2009 by the Additional Director General of Police, Assam Police (TAP), respondent No. 2 for recruitment of AB constables. The petitioners who hail from Sivasagar district offered their candidatures against the said advertisement. After due verification of the applications along with other necessary documents, the petitioners’ testimonials were found correct in all respect. The petitioners along with other candidates had undergone physical measurement and fitness test in the month of August, September and October, 2009. The petitioners’ names were selected to appear in the oral interview/ viva voce comprising 50 marks and the qualifying mark was 25. Both the petitioners faced the oral interview/ viva voce and when the respondent authority published the select list, the names of the petitioners did not find place therein. Alleging
Page No.# 3/4
anomalies in the advertise published in the month of February, 2009 and that too after appearing in the said selection process on the basis of the advertisement, the petitioners filed this writ petition citing that in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 (Palash Phukan and 166 others Vs State of Assam and others) this Hon’ble court made roving enquiry regarding the contention of the petitioners and finally vide order dated 22.02.2019 disposed of the said writ petition with an observation that without interfering with the select list prepared by the authority and directed the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioners therein in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 for appointment in the post of AB constables or any other equivalent posts against current and next available vacancies in a phased manner. Mr. Ahmed relying the said decision passed in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 sought for interference in the selection process for the Sivasagar district also citing various anomalies in the selection process. Mr. Nath on the other hand vehemently objected to the said prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that there is a substantial delay on the part of the petitioners in preferring the writ petition and in a similar petition learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court was satisfied to dismiss WP(C) No. 4921/2019 on 05.08.2019 for the following grounds:
“As would be evident from the narration of facts as above, the employment notice was issued i.e., results were declared on 20.2.2009. A group of petitioners from Sivasagar district assailed their non-selection in the year 2010 by filing WP(C) No. 2725/2010. After a long legal battle, they have got the fruits of their litigation by way of the judgment and order dated 22.02.2019.
Petitioners had participated in the same recruitment process culminating in the employment notice dated 20.02.2009. For more than 10 years, they did not raise any objection or any grievance regarding their non-selection. Only after the judgment and order dated 22.02.2019, they filed the representation purportedly on 18.03.2019 with no acknowledgment of receipt. It is evident that petitioners had no grievance as to their non-selection for more than 10 years. At this distant point of time, petitioners cannot be permitted to rake up a dead issue in so far they are considered and seek advantage of the fruits of litigation of another batch of petitioners who had raised their grievance at the appropriate time. Moreover, there is no averment worth considering either in the writ petition or in the additional-affidavit explaining the delay in raising their grievance.
In such circumstances, court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition which has been filed so belatedly. Consequently, court finds no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. ”
Page No.# 4/4
If the factual matrix are considered in the present writ petition I do not find any difference in the conduct of the present petitioners with the one in WP(C) No. 4921/2019. The claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained at this belated stage wherein their roles were nothing but fence sitters. Accordingly, for the delay and laches the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs as there are no explanation in the writ petition. Even if there be any explanation the same cannot be considered inasmuch as the petitioners allowed their rights to be taken away by the act of acquiescence on their part which forms the part of laches on the part of the petitioners. The laches is apparent and the delay factor cannot be waived. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed at the motion stage.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging non-selection in a recruitment process can be entertained after a substantial delay without explanation.
Whether the principle of laches applies when petitioners wait over ten years to raise a grievance after participating in the selection process.
Whether petitioners who remained inactive for years can benefit from the litigation fruits of another batch of candidates.
Haren Mili and Anr.
The State of Assam
Prasanta Kumar Deka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
