Disposed

The Director Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Deptt. Assam v. Rahul Amin Mazarbhuiya and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Nov 2022Review.Pet./59/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition regarding denial of participation in a Veterinary Field Assistant selection, the Gauhati High Court disposed of the matter without deciding merits. It directed respondents to allow the writ petitioner to apply for the 2022-23 course by a specific later date, noting other candidates had already started training. This judgment is not a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to allow the writ petitioner to submit his application for VFA Training Course 2022-23 offline on or before 10.11.2022, provided not earlier; case disposed without merits.

The Director Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Deptt… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010057402022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet./59/2022

¶5

THE DIRECTOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY DEPTT. ASSAM CHENIKUTHI, GUWAHATI-781003

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RAHUL AMIN MAZARBHUIYA AND 3 ORS. S/O ANAM UDDIN MAZARBHUIYA, VILL-BHATIRKUPA PART-II, P.O.BHATIRKUPA. P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788152

¶8

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM A.H. AND VETERINARY DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006

¶10

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM-788151

¶11

4:THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. AND DIST-HAILAKANDI ASSAM-788151

¶12

5:THE PRINCIPAL

¶13

SCHOOL OF VETERINARY SCIENCE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AT GHUNGOOR SILCHAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

ASSAM PIN-78801

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHETRI

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶19

ORDER

¶20

03.11.2022

¶21

Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the sole respondent/writ petitioner.

¶22

This review petition has been filed against the order dated 17.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.7314/2021. The review petitioner’s counsel submits that the writ petitioner was allowed to take part in the selection process for the Veterinary Field Assistant (VFA) Training Course, in terms of the Admission Notice dated 25.01.2021. The review petitioner’s counsel submits that in terms of Clause G(3) of the Admission Notice, a candidate has to submit his Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) issued for educational purpose or “receipt of application for PRC before the Deputy Commissioner’s office”, along with his application. The writ petitioner did not submit “the PRC or the receipt of application of the PRC”. He submits that this Court in it’s order dated 08.03.2022 passed in I.A(Civil) No.657/2022, arising out of WP(C) No.952/2022, had held that the Admission Notice dated 25.01.2021 required the candidate to submit the PRC for educational purpose or “receipt of application for PRC before the Deputy Commissioner’s office”. He submits that as the same has not been done by the writ petitioner, the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 passed in WP(C)

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

No.7314/2021 should be set aside, by allowing the review petition.

¶25

The review petitioner’s counsel also submits that as the petitioner is in possession of the PRC as on date and as a new Advertisement dated 21.09.2022 has been issued for the VFA Training Course 2022-2023, the writ petitioner can apply for the same. He also submits that the last date for submission of application by the candidates was 27.10.2022.

¶26

Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on the other hand submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.7314/2021 and as such, the review petition should be dismissed. He submits that in terms of the various orders passed by this Court in WP(C) No.7314/2021, the writ petitioner had been allowed to pray for a fresh PRC and consequent to the said order, the review petitioner had filed his affidavit-in-opposition. On considering the various aspects of the case, which includes the fact that the petitioner’s PRC application had been rejected earlier on the ground that the writ petitioner had not mentioned that the PRC was for educational purpose, this Court had directed the respondents to allow the writ petitioner to take part in the selection process.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶28

It has been stated at the bar that the candidates who are to take part in the VFA Training Course for the Session 2020-2021 have already been selected and that they have already started their training. Further, the writ petitioner has not been called for the viva-voce test.

¶29

In view of the above facts, this Court is of the view that without going into the merits of the review petition, the entire controversy can be resolved, if the writ petitioner is allowed to take part in the selection process, for undergoing

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

the VFA Training Course for the Session 2022-2023, in terms of the Advertisement dated 21.09.2022. However, as it has been stated by the review petitioner’s counsel that the last date of submission for application was 27.10.2022, this Court is of the view that there should be a relaxation of the last date for submission of the application by the writ petitioner only, in respect of VFA training course to be held in pursuant to the Advertisement dated 21.09.2022. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, it is directed that the respondents shall allow the writ petitioner to submit his application in the offline mode, for participating in the VFA Training Course for the Session 20222023, provided that the said application is submitted on or before 10.11.2022, if not already applied for earlier. It is needless to add that if the writ petitioner’s application has been made in terms of the Advertisement dated 21.09.2022, the respondents would have to consider the case of the writ petitioner. Consequently, the review petition stands disposed of.

¶32

It is made clear that this order has been made in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and it should not be used as a precedent.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

The Director Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Deptt. Assam v. Rahul Amin Mazarbhuiya and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Deptt. Assam v. Rahul Amin Mazarbhuiya and 3 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

Sewali Das Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pallav Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Lut Ahmed Barbhuiya Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Director Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Deptt. Assam Vs Rahul Amin Mazarbhuiya and 3 Ors.

Bijuli Das Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.

Prabhat Narzary Vs the Bodoland Territorial Council and 4 Ors.