Dismissed

Dhanjit Nath v. Deputy Secretary and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Mar 2021WP(C)/702/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged selection for Deputy Marshal post, claiming unfairness as top candidates did not attend interviews. Court verified marks and clarified petitioner confused roll numbers with merit positions. Petitioner's marks were significantly lower than selected candidates' marks. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition challenging selection process on grounds of low marks and assumed merit positions has been dismissed.

Dhanjit Nath Vs Deputy Secretary and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010005802021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/702/2021

¶5

DHANJIT NATH

¶6

C/O- UMESH NATH, VILL- BATHAN (SUALKUCHI), P.O. AND P.S. SUALKUCHI, DIST.- KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN- 781103

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

DEPUTY SECRETARY AND 5 ORS ASSAM LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, GHY-06

¶9

2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ASSAM LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY GHY-06

¶10

3:JOINT SECRETARY ASSAM LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY GHY-06

¶11

4:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PERSONNEL A DEPT.

¶12

5:PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ASSAM LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY GHY-06

¶13

6:1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SECRETARIAT ADMINISTRATION DEPTT

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BAISHYA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

01.03.2021

¶20

Heard Mr. D. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner had taken part in the selection process for appointment to two vacant posts of Deputy Marshall in the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat, pursuant to the advertisement dated 01.06.2020. The petitioner secured the 4^th position in the merit list, based on the written test and the NCC certificate. The persons, who secured the second and third position in the merit list, did not appear in the subsequent interview. The person who secured the first position in the merit list based on the written test was selected along with the person who secured 71^th position in the merit list. He submits that the RTI applicant submitted by the petitioner has not been fruitful, inasmuch as, the marks awarded to the candidates in the written test and interview has not been furnished to him.

¶21

Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, has submitted the comparative statement showing the aggregate marks obtained by the candidates, who appeared in the oral interview for the post of Deputy Marshal, Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat held on 10^th & 11^th November, 2020. He submits that the petitioner had secured only 59 marks while the persons, who have been selected had secured 83 marks and 82 marks respectively.

¶22

I have perused the comparative statement of aggregate marks, which shows that Roll No.1 Satabdi Dutta had secured 83 marks, while Roll No.71 Sanjeev Roy had secured 82 marks. The petitioner on the other hand, whose Roll Number was 04 had secured 59 marks.

¶23

The petitioner seems to have a wrong understanding of facts, inasmuch as, he has assumed the Roll numbers of the candidates to be their position on merit. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s marks are less than the marks secured by the selected candidates, this Court does not find any ground to allow the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

The comparative statement of aggregate marks submitted by Mr. B.D. Das is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Dhanjit Nath v. Deputy Secretary and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanjit Nath v. Deputy Secretary and 5 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

K.Kapsanga Vs Charlie Zomawia

Lalrintluangi Vs The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Local Administration DepartmentState of Mizoram

State of Mizoram r/b The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram Vs Lalramliana

Manju Borah and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Kamal Das and 4 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Shyamananda Reang Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.