Disposed

Rajib Bura Gohain v. the Honourable Gauhati High Court and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2021WP(C)/1109/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, second preferential candidate for a Peon post, seeks appointment after first candidate was cancelled due to over-qualification. Court observes that disqualification due to over-qualification falls within general grounds of disqualification. Court directs employment authority to consider petitioners case.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's case for appointment as he was the second preferential candidate.

Rajib Bura Gohain Vs the Honourable Gauhati… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010033992019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1109/2019

¶5

RAJIB BURA GOHAIN

¶6

S/O. LT. MINA KANTA BURA GOHAIN, R/O. VILLAGE- RUPNAGAR, P.O.ARADHAL, P.S. DHEMAJI, DIST. DHEMAJI, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE HONOURABLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE HONOURABLE REGISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI HIGH COURT, GUWAHATI-01.

¶9

2:THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DHEMAJI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057.

¶10

3:THE SELECTION BOARD FOR FILLING UP THE POST OF PEON IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DHEMAJI REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DHEMAJI PIN- 787057

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S Y AHMED

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GHC

¶13

Page No.# 2/6

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 04-03-2021

¶17

Heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel.

¶18

2. The petitioner’s grievance is that despite being the second preferential candidate in pursuance to the selection process, for filling up the vacant post of Peon in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Dhemaji and the appointment of the first preferential candidate being cancelled due to the fact that she was over-qualified, the petitioner has not been appointed to the vacant post of Peon till date.

¶19

3. The brief facts of the case is that in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 22.05.2013, which called for filling up the vacant post of Peon in the establishment of the CJM, Dhemaji, the petitioner and one Ms. Minawati Buragohain Duwarah took part in the selection process. The eligibility criteria for appointment to the vacant post of Peon was that the candidate should be of minimum X^th standard and maximum XII^th standard.

¶20

4. Ms. Minawati Buragohain Duwarah, who was a graduate, was selected for appointment to the vacant post of Peon as the first preferential candidate, while the writ petitioner was selected as the second preferential candidate vide Order dated 03.07.2013 issued by the Selection Board. The Selection Board in the Order dated 03.07.2013 also resolved that the petitioner would be appointed in case the first preferential candidate failed or was disqualified

¶21

“on the ground like police verification report and medical fitness certificate”.

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the appointment of the first preferential candidate, who was over-qualified in terms of the Advertisement dated 22.05.2013 filed WP(C) No. 6980/2013. This Court vide Judgment & Order dated 20.11.2018 disposed of WP(C) No. 6980/2013, holding that a candidate having qualification below the X^th standard and above the XII^th standard were ineligible for appointment to the vacant post of Peon. It also held that the first preferential candidate, who was the respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 6980/2013 had suppressed the fact that she was a graduate to secure the appointment. This Court thus held that the appointment of the first preferential candidate was in violation of the advertisement notice and as such, the respondents were directed to take appropriate action in the matter. In pursuance to the Judgment & Order dated 20.11.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 6980/2013, the office of the CJM, Dhemaji issued Order dated 25.01.2019 removing the first preferential candidate from service on account of being over-qualified. As the petitioner was not appointed to the vacant post of Peon, though he was the second preferential candidate in terms of the selection process held in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 22.05.2013, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶24

6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has filed WP(C) No. 6980/2013 within 1 (one) year from the date of the appointment of the first preferential candidate and as the first preferential candidate has been disqualified from holding the vacant post of Peon, the petitioner should be appointed in the said vacant post.

¶25

7. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that once the first preferential candidate was appointed to the vacant post of Peon on 03.07.2013, the select list made in terms of the Order dated 03.07.2013 came to an end. He accordingly

¶26

Page No.# 4/6

¶27

submits that a fresh selection would have to be undertaken to fill up the vacant post of Peon.

¶28

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶29

9. It is seen that while the first preferential candidate, who was over-qualified had been appointed on 03.07.2013, the petitioner has filed WP(C) No. 6980/2013 on 28.11.2013. This Court, while holding that the first preferential candidate was appointed in violation of the Advertisement dated 22.05.2013 in its Judgment & Order dated 20.11.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 6980/2013 had permitted the petitioner to approach this Court again, if he continued to remain aggrieved in the matter.

¶30

10. The Order dated 03.07.2013 issued by the Selection Board provides that the petitioner, who was the second preferential candidate would be appointed in case the first preferential candidate failed or was disqualified on grounds “like” Police Verification Report and Medical Fitness Certificate. The use of the word “like” in the Order dated 03.07.2013, is in the general sense and in the opinion of this Court, would include within the ambit of disqualification, the over-qualification of the first preferential candidate, due to which she could not have been selected or appointed for the vacant post of Peon. Though a select/waiting list cannot normally remain valid beyond a year, it is seen that the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the first preferential candidate within 4 (four) months vide WP(C) No. 6980/2013. It is amply clear that if the disqualification of the first preferential candidate had been detected in the first instance, the petitioner would have been appointed to the vacant post.

¶31

11. Paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 &

¶32

2 also shows that the application of the petitioner to be appointed in place of the first

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

preferential candidate had been forwarded to the Selection Board, Dhemaji by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the meeting was to be held for the said purpose on 08.03.2019. However, the meeting could not take place in view of the fact that this Court had passed a direction not to fill up the vacant post of Peon vide Order dated 22.02.2019. As such, the Selection Board has not been able to take any decision with regard to the petitioner’s application for appointment to the vacant post of Peon.

¶35

12. On considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner’s case for appointment to the vacant post of Peon has to be considered by the Selection Board, Dhemaji as he was the second preferential candidate in terms of the Selection process held in pursuance to the Advertisement dated 22.05.2013. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the disqualification and subsequent cancellation of the appointment of the first preferential candidate requires consideration of the petitioner’s case for appointment to the vacant post of Peon.

¶36

13. In the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir & Another Vs. Ravinder Singh & Others, Civil Appeal No. 11976/2016, which was disposed of by the Apex Court on 06.12.2016, it was held that while the over-qualified diploma holders could not have been considered for appointment to the post of Technician-III, there was no question for the Service Selection Board or the State Government not to appoint the qualified writ petitioners to the post of Technician-III either on the posts which were available in 1998, when the advertisement was issued or which may become available in subsequent years or by creating supernumerary posts.

¶37

14. In view of the reasons stated above and keeping in view the fact that this case should not be used as a precedent, this Court directs the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, to consider the

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

case of the petitioner for appointment to the vacant post of Peon in the establishment of the CJM, Dhemaji, as he was the second preferential candidate. The exercise should be completed within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶40

The writ petition is accordingly disposed off.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Rajib Bura Gohain v. the Honourable Gauhati High Court and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajib Bura Gohain v. the Honourable Gauhati High Court and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Paul Vs Hemen Das, IAS

Pranab Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Md. Jamal Uddin Sikdar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Anita Sinha Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dinesh Barman Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Musstt. Keyarun Nessa Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.