Dismissed

Habibur Rahman Khan and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC7 Dec 2021WP(C)/2078/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their non-selection for Demonstration posts in Assam's Handloom & Textile Directorate, alleging a secretive selection process and lack of published marks. The Court examined merit lists, found petitioners scored lower than the lowest selected candidates in their respective categories, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Habibur Rahman Khan and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010109462016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2078/2016

¶5

HABIBUR RAHMAN KHAN and 2 ORS. S/O MD. ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, R/O MAJORTOP, P.S. CHAYGAON, KAMRUP, P.O. TUKRAPARA, ASSAM, PIN-781137

¶6

2: MRS. ALAKA GOHAIN W/O SRI SANJIB GOGOI R/O PUB SARANIA CHANDMARI GHY-3 KAMRUP ASSAM

¶7

3: PARESH KEONT S/O LT. LAKHIRAM KEONT R/O 1 NO. KAKI 2 NO. GAON P.S. KAKI DIST- NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78244

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY COMMISSIONER and SECY., HANDLOOM, TEXTILES AND SERICULTURE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶10

2:DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOM AND TEXTILE ASSAM

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

AMBARI GHY-

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K BARKATAKI

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MR R DHAR, SC, HANDLOOM AND TEXTILE DEPARTMENT, ASSAM

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 07-12-2021

¶18

Heard Mr. S.K. Barkakati, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned counsel for the State respondents.

¶19

This writ petition relates to the selection and appointment to the post of Demostrators in the Directorate of Handloom & Textile, Govt. of Assam. The petitioners are aggrieved at not being selected and appointed to the vacant posts.

¶20

The State respondents issued advertisement calling for candidates for filling up 24 vacancies for the post of Demonstrator. The select list dated 02.01.2016 was made wherein, the petitioners did not find mention.

¶21

The petitioners’ counsel submits that the petitioner No.1 belongs to the general category, while the petitioner No.2 belongs to OBC category and the petitioner No.3 belongs to SC category. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the respondent authority ought to have published the marks obtained by the candidates in the selection process, which consisted of a written test, practical and viva voce. However, the marks not having been published by the respondents, the petitioners are aggrieved by the selection process being undertaken in a very secretive manner. He also submits that as the petitioners No.2 and 3 belong to the SC and OBC category respectively, they had every

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

chance to be selected for the said posts.

¶24

Mr. R. Dhar, learned standing counsel for the respondents has produced the statement of marks secured by the selected candidates and the petitioners herein.

¶25

The general category candidate who secured the lowest marks amongst the selected candidates is Miss Nabamallika Borah, who secured a total of 105 marks, when adding up the marks secured by her in the theory paper, practical and viva voce. The average mark secured by Ms. Nabamallika Borah is 35. On the other hand, the petitioner No.1 who is a general category candidate, secured 97.33 in total and his average mark was 32.443.

¶26

With respect to the lowest marks obtained by the selected candidate who is of the OBC category, it is seen that one Jyotika Gogoi Chutia secured the total marks of 102.60 and the average mark was 34.2. On the other hand, the petitioner No.3, who is also a OBC candidate, secured the total marks of 91.07 and the average mark of 30.356.

¶27

In respect of the lowest marks secured by a selected candidate of the SC category, it is seen that one Shri Pankaj Kumar Bania secured a total of 93.80 marks and the average mark of 31.266, while the petitioner No.2, who is a SC candidate, secured the total marks of 91.73 and the average marks of 30.576.

¶28

A perusal of the above marks secured by the selected candidates and the petitioners clearly goes to show that the petitioners have got less marks than the last selected category of candidates pertaining to the general category, the OBC and the SC category. Further the petitioners have not impleaded any of the selected candidates as parties to the writ petition.

¶29

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any reason to

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

allow the present writ petition.

¶32

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Habibur Rahman Khan and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Habibur Rahman Khan and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Mannan Vs Assam Public Service Commission and 4 Ors.

Fatema Begum Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ajay Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Smt. Manju Kakati Nath Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Rinku Boro Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Sunil Kumar Force No. 901710135 Insp/Steno Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.