Dismissed

Dipak Gogoi and 23 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Dec 2021WP(C)/2606/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their regularization and preference in selection. Court held that since their posts were filled up via selection, the petition had no substance and ordered its closure, directing respondents to consider preference in future selections.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed. The respondent authority is directed to consider the petitioners for preference in the next selection process if possible under extant norms.

Dipak Gogoi and 23 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010175032016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/6874/2016

¶5

RAFIQUL ISLAM KHAN and 23 ORS S/O- LOKMAN ALI, R/O VILL.- RAMPUR, P.S.- SOLAPATHAR, DIST.NAGAON, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DISPUR, GHY- 6.

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BISWAS

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶10

Linked Case : WP(C)/2606/2016

¶11

DIPAK GOGOI and 23 ORS S/O. SRI KHEMESWAR GOGOI VILL. GORAMARA P.O. CHARIDUAR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM.

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE COMM. and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPTT. OF HEALTH and FAMILY WELFARE DISPUR GHY.-781006.

¶15

-----------Advocate for : MS.K L R YANTHAN Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 17.12.2021

¶19

Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel Health & Family Welfare Department.

¶20

Pursuant to order dated 8.12.2021 of this court Mr. Biswas submits that the petitioners are not continuing in their services. The fact remains that after 30.92014 the engagements of the contractual MPW had been discontinued and thereafter, regular sanctioned posts of MPW were created by the Health and Family Welfare department. A selection process was held for filling up such sanctioned posts that were created wherein the existing contractual employees as well as fresh candidates were allowed to participate and pursuant to such selection, the posts have been filed up. In that view of the matter nothing survives to be adjudicated in the present writ petition and this writ petition needs to be closed.

¶21

At this stage, Mr. Biswas makes a prayer that since they are having experience, when next selection is initiated, they should be given preference. This court cannot allow such a prayer. However this court can direct the respondent authority to consider the case of the

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

petitioners for granting preference, if possible under the extant norms. Accordingly in terms of aforesaid observation this writ petition is closed. However, no order as to cost.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Comparing Assistant

Dipak Gogoi and 23 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Gogoi and 23 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rina Rani Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Durna Kanta Gogoi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kenduguri Gaon Panchayat and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Amarendra Deka Vs the Energy and Resources Institute and 5 Ors.

Rafiqul Islam Khan and 23 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Nazrul Ali Vs Jolly Das Brahma and Anr.