Disposed
Dibyalata Roy v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.
Gauhati HCWP(C)/751/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
GAHC010019632018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT…
What the court decided
AI extract
GAHC010019632018 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT…
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.# 1/3
GAHC010019632018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/751/2018
DIBYALATA ROY
D/O- HARE KRISHNA ROY, VILL- MANIKPUR, P.O. AND P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-783392
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE UNDER SECRETARY
3:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONE
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD
Advocate for the Respondent : MR P S DEKA (SC, REVENUE DEPT.)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 19-11-2020
Heard Shri MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri BJ Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department as well as Ms. MD Bora, learned
Page No.# 2/3
State Counsel, Assam.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities in not offering her appointment as Lat Mandal. It is the case of the petitioner that her case was considered pursuant to three advertisements published on 08.10.2010, 26.10.2019 and 30.01.2014. In the said recruitment process though the petitioner had become successful, due to nonavailability of vacancies under the quota in which she had applied, she was deprived of from such appointment.
Shri Mahmud, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 20.09.2017 passed by this Court in an earlier round of litigation, being WP(C) No.3409/2016 by the said petitioner, whereby this Court had directed consideration of de-reservation of three numbers of posts so that the petitioner could be accommodated. However, it appears that de-reservation could not be done for which the petitioner continued to be unemployed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing on record a communication dated 14.09.2020, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta has submitted that at present there are 23 numbers of posts, including 7 posts in the category of OBC in the district of Barpeta which are lying vacant and as per the said communication, a proposal for advertisement has been forwarded. Mr. Mahmud has fairly submitted that despite the fact that the present writ petition pertains to the earlier three advertisements, his client would be satisfied if a fair consideration of her case is made provided she applies for appointment as Lat Mandal pursuant to the advertisement which is likely to be published as per the communication dated 14.09.2020 of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. He furthers submits that presently the age of the petitioner is about 40 years which is beyond the maximum age limit prescribed for public employment. He, however, submits that considering the earlier direction of this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and also the fact that the present petition is pending since 2018, the appropriate authority may consider condonation of the age of the petitioner by application of the relevant communication in this regard.
Shri BJ Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel submits that there would be no bar for the
Page No.# 3/3
petitioner to apply for appointment as and when fresh advertisement is published subject to meeting all the eligibility criteria. As regards the age factor, the learned Standing Counsel submits that if a direction in this regard is issued and an appropriate application is made by the petitioner, certainly her age would be condoned by taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case.
Ms. MD Bora, learned State Counsel endorses the submissions made by Shri Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances without making any observation on the merits of the pleaded case of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by directing that as and when a recruitment process is undertaken pursuant to the communication dated 14.09.2020 of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta for filling up the post of Lat Mandal in the 23 numbers of vacancies, of which 7 numbers are also reserved for the OBC/MOBC category, the case of the petitioner be fairly considered taking into account the antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner may also file necessary application for condoning her age which is directed to be considered in accordance with the present notification holding the field for such condonation.
The fact that the petitioner was found qualified in the earlier recruitment process initiated by the above three advertisements but could not be offered appointment due to lack of vacancies in her category may also be taken into consideration.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
A copy of the communication dated 14.09.2020 is kept as a part of the records.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's application for appointment as Lat Mandal should be fairly considered considering her past qualification and the direction for condonation of age.
Whether the petitioner's age can be condoned for the purpose of appointment.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of by directing fair consideration without adjudicating merits.
DIBYALATA ROY
THE STATE OF ASSAM
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court