Allowed

Namita Bezbaruah @ Namita Deka v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Jun 2022WA/191/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing a petition for preferential appointment. The appellant argued she should qualify under Rules aiding wives of disabled Assam Movement participants regardless of marriage timing or her age then. The Court held infancy was irrelevant and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 and remanding the matter to the competent authority for appointment consideration.

Namita Bezbaruah @ Namita Deka Vs the State of Assam… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010076622022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WA/191/2022

¶5

NAMITA BEZBARUAH @ NAMITA DEKA W/O. SRI JYOTISH DEKA, R/O. VILL. KARIPARA, P.O. BHOGPUR, P.S. GARESWAR, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN-781366.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

¶8

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶9

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM ASSAM ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶10

3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.

¶11

4:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI PIN-781022.

¶12

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAKSA MUSHALPUR DIST. BAKSA ASSAM PIN-781372.

¶13

6:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER AGRICULTURE DEPTT. BAKSA, ASSAM PIN-781372

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD B ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶17

:: O R D E R ::

¶18

08.06.2022

¶19

[N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ(Acting)]

¶20

Heard Md. B. Islam, learned counsel appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.

¶21

In this appeal, the grievance raised before this Court is about the finding made by the Ld. Single Judge in the order dated 23.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.2014/2022 to the fact that the appellant was only 1(one) year old in the year 1982 when her husband was physically disabled which led to the inference that the claim of the appellant is false and fabricated.

¶22

The order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge reads as follows, “23.03.2022

¶23

Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s husband was physically disabled on 03.11.1982, while taking part in the Assam Movement. He submits that in terms of Rule 4-A of the Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “1999 Rules”), the petitioner has to be given preference in appointments to Government jobs in terms of the 1999 Rules.

¶24

Ms. M.D. Borah, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the present case appears to be a fabricated case.

¶25

On perusing the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner’s age is 41 years as on 16.03.2022. The Annexure-1 which is the Certificate dated 01.07.1999 issued by the Principal, Naokata Milan Higher Secondary School shows that the petitioner’s date of birth is 05.03.1981.

¶26

The above makes it very clear that the petitioner would have been only 1 (one) year of age in the year 1982, when her husband was physically disabled. Accordingly this Court is of

¶27

Page No.# 3/3

¶28

the view that the present case is a fabricated case and accordingly need not take the time of this Court any longer.

¶29

The writ petition is dismissed, with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Registry of this Court, within a week. The said amount shall thereafter be disbursed to the Gauhati High Court (Principal Seat) Employees’ Welfare Fund.”

¶30

The case of the appellant, however, is that even though the appellant was only 1(one) years when her husband became disabled in 1982 as she was born in 1981, she got married to her husband only in the year 2008 and once having married to a disabled person whose case was, otherwise, covered under the beneficial Rules, Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999, the appellant would be entitled to be considered for preferential treatment in the matter of appointment as per the aforesaid Rules irrespective of whether she was minor at the time when the incident occurred.

¶31

We have gone through the aforesaid Rules of 1999.

¶32

What the aforesaid Rules provide is that the wife of a person who becomes disabled as mentioned in the aforesaid Rules on account of participation in the Assam agitation/movement would be entitled and it has no relevance as to when she got married to her husband.

¶33

Thus, what is relevant is the relationship of the claimant with the husband at the time of making claim and the age of the claimant. As such, the fact that the claimant might have been only about one year old, when her husband had suffered the physical disability is not relevant.

¶34

Under the circumstances, we allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the competent authority to consider the case of the appellant for appointment under the aforesaid the Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999, which shall be considered as per the Rules.

¶35

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 passed by Ld. Single Judge in WP(C) No.2014/2022.

¶36

CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Namita Bezbaruah @ Namita Deka v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namita Bezbaruah @ Namita Deka v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maramee Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Shri Ngasi Mena and 4 Ors.

Sajidur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Pijuj Kanti Dey and 106 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 185 Ors.

The Management of Dainik Jugasankha Vs Fazluzzaman Mazumder and Anr.

Swaraj Swadesh Saikia, Vs the State of Assam and Ors.