Dismissed

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

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2019WP(C)/7227/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging a District Level Committee's 2007 recommendation of Rupak Ranjan Bora over the petitioner. The court held that after verifying financial criteria, the committee's decision was reasonable. Additionally, the six-year delay was not due to a continuous wrong, rendering the petitions non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions WP(C) 7227/2013 and WP(C) 4525/2014 stand dismissed; records returned to respondents.

Arup Jyoti Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010013772013

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 7227/2013

¶5

1:ARUP JYOTI GOGOI S/O- LT. GIRIDHAR GOGOI, VILL.- BHATEMORA GAON, P.O. and DIST.JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785006.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, WATER RESOUCES DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶9

2:THE DY. SECY. I TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 6.

¶10

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JORHAT WATER RESOURCES DIVISION JORHAT ASSAM.

¶11

4:THE DIST. LEVEL COMMITTEE REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN THE DY. COMMISSIONER JORHAT ASSAM.

¶12

5:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY- 6.

¶13

6:RUPAK RANJAN BORA S/O- LT. NABIN BORA VILL. and P.O.- BAHANA

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

JORHAT- 785001 ASSAM

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRR K NEOG Advocate for the Respondent : MR.D K KALITA

¶17

Linked Case : WP(C) 4525/2014

¶18

1:ARUP JYOTI GOGOI S/O LT. GIRIDHAR GOGOI VILL- BHATEMORA GAON P.O. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785006. VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM and 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY I TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JORHT WATER RESOURCES DIVISION JORHAT ASSAM. 5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JORHAT ASSAM.

¶19

6:THE STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN

¶20

Page No.# 3/6

¶21

THE CHAIRMAN THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶22

7:RUPAK RANJAN BORA S/O LT. NABIN BORA VILL- BAHANA P.O. BAHANA DIST. JORHAT- 785001 ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.D K KALITAR-7

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶24

Date : 09-12-2019

¶25

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶26

Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 7227/2013 and MR. SJ Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.4525/2014.

¶27

By WP(C) No.7227/2013, the recommendation of the respondent No.6 therein namely Rupak Ranjan Bora in the District Level Committee meeting held on 01.03.2007, was assailed. By the other writ petition being WP(C) No.4525/2014 of the same writ petitioner, the appointment order dated 06.12.2013 of the respondent No.7 therein namely Rupak Ranjan Bora has been assailed.

¶28

In the order dated 13.11.2019, while the matter was given a consideration, it transpired that although a meeting of the DLC was held on 01.03.2007, but the actual recommendation was deferred and was made in the meeting of the DLC held on 09.07.2007. Accordingly, by the order of 13.11.2019, the records of the minutes of the DLC held on 09.07.2007 was called for. When the matter was taken up today, the records of the DLC is made available before the Court.

¶29

The inter-se comparison made by the DLC between the petitioner Arup Jyoti Gogoi and the respondent No.6/7 Sri Rupak Ranjan Bora are as follows:-

¶30

Page No.# 4/6

¶31

Sl No	Details of the Applicant	Economic status of the
		deceased family:-
	A. Name:
	B. Date of birth:	A. Total members in the family
	C. Caste: D.Date of Application:	B. How many are employed in Govt./Private Service C. Total landedproperty:-
	E.Father/husband’s name
		D.Total annual income from all sources including
		pension/Gratuityetc:
3	Selected	A. 4(four) nos B. Nil
	A. Sri Rupak Ranjan Bora	C. Not Known
	B. 1-2-1985	1. Gratuity= Rs.1,41,000.00
	C.O.B.C D.28-9-04 E.Late Nobin Bora	2. Annual family pension =Rs.60,000.00 3. Annual income from other sources = Rs.30,000.00
	(Father), S.A.
7	Non Selected	A. 3(three) nos
	A. Sri Arup Jyoti Gogoi B.24-2-1978 C.OBC D.12-1-2006 E.Late Giridhor Gogoi (Father), Section Asstt	B. One member is employed in service C. Not Known D. 1. Gratuity=1,37,942.00 2. Annual family pension= Rs.35,400.00

¶32

Page No.# 5/6

¶33

3. Annual income from other
sources = Rs.56,400.00

¶34

An examination of the financial comparison shows that while the selected candidate Rupak Ranjan Bora had the benefit of Gratuity of Rs.1,41,000/-, Annual Family Pension of Rs.60,000/- and Annual Income from other sources of Rs.30,000/-, the petitioner Arup Jyoti Gogoi had the benefit of Gratuity of Rs.1,37,942/-, Annual Family Pension of Rs.35,400/- and Annual Income from other sources at Rs.56,400/-.

¶35

In the aforesaid financial comparison, the DLC took a decision in favour of the respondent No.6/7 Rupak Ranjan Bora. Although the annual family pension of petitioner Arup Jyoti Gogoi appears to be less than the respondent No.6/7 Rupak Ranjan Bora, but in respect of the annual income from other sources, the respondent No.6/7 Rupak Ranjan Bora has an income of Rs.30,000/- whereas the petitioner Arup Jyoti Gogoi has an annual income of Rs.56,400/-.

¶36

A view had been taken by the DLC as regards the financial comparison and upon examining the records, we do not find any reason to substitute our view against the view taken by the DLC. From the said point of view, we do not find it to be a fit case for interfering with the recommendation made by the DLC in favour of the respondent No.6/7 Rupak Ranjan Bora.

¶37

Further, we also take note of the fact that the recommendations were made on 09.07.2007, whereas the writ petition WP(C) No.7227/2013 was filed on 09.12.2013 whereas the WP(C) No.4525/2014 was filed on 01.09.2014. The cause of action for filing both the writ petitions arose in the year 2007, whereas they were filed respectively in the year 2013 and 2014.

¶38

The aspect of delay in filing a writ petition had been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 272/2018 in its judgment and order dated 09.12.2019, wherein a distinction had been made between a decision, which results in a continuous wrong giving rise to a recurring cause of action and the decision that if assailed after a reasonable delay would have

¶39

Page No.# 6/6

¶40

the effect of causing confusion and public inconvenience and also injustice on third parties. It was held that the delay caused due to a continuous wrong giving rise to recurring cause would entail the entertainment of a writ petition, whereas the decision having the effect of causing confusion and public inconvenience and also injustice of third parties would have to be rejected.

¶41

In the instant case, we find that the delay of six years is not due to any continuous wrong giving rise to a recurring cause of action. From the said point of view also, we find the writ petitions to be not maintainable.

¶42

For both the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.

¶43

The records stand returned to the respondents.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arup Jyoti Gogoi v. the State of Assam and 5 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

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

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