Disposed

Bhanumati Roy @ Bhanumati Barman v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 May 2022WP(C)/2801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking preferential appointment for the wife of a physically disabled person. The Court held that applicable rules must be examined if the petitioner applies for a posted position, with verification of eligibility and documents required.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed that if she applies for an advertised post, the respondents must determine quota availability, verify her status as family of a disabled person, and check eligibility. Petition oth

Bhanumati Roy @ Bhanumati Barman Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010072982022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/2801/2022

¶5

BHANUMATI ROY @ BHANUMATI BARMAN W/O- KUNJA NATH BARMAN R/O- VILLAGE KAKAIJANA P.S- ABHAYAPURI

¶6

DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶10

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM

¶11

ASSAM ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION DEPARTMENT

¶12

DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶13

3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM

¶14

ASSAM ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION DEPARTMENT

¶15

DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶16

4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM

¶17

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶20

5:THE DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT KHANAPARA GUWAHATI PIN-781022 6:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON PIN-783380

¶21

7:THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT BONGAIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON PIN-78137

¶22

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD B ISLAM

¶23

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, AGRI. DEPARTMENT

¶24

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶25

ORDER

¶26

11.05.2022

¶27

Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is the wife of Kunja Nath Barman, who was physically disabled during the Assam Movement. He submits that the petitioner should be given preferential appointment when recruitment is made to a Government post in terms of Rule 4-A of the Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999, herein after referred to as the ‘1999 Rules’.

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

Ms. R. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the Agriculture Department and Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 6 submit that there is nothing to show that the petitioner has applied for any Government post, in pursuant to any advertisement or selection process undertaken by the Government. However, they submit that the case of the petitioner can be considered, provided that the petitioner is a member of the family of a martyr or a disabled person, when the petitioner applies for a Government post and selection process is initiated by the Government. They also submit that the genuineness of the certificates issued by the authorities, as annexed in the writ petition would also have to be verified by the respondents, besides the petitioner requiring to have all the eligibility criteria required for being considered for such advertised post.

¶30

On hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of at the Motion stage itself. Accordingly, if the petitioner applies for a government post which is advertised and selection process is initiated by the Government, the respondents would have to determine whether any quota is reserved for filling up the said posts by way of the 1999 Rules. The respondents would also have to verify whether the petitioner is a member of the family of a martyr or a disabled person as provided in the 1999 Rules, besides verifying the genuineness of the documents furnished by the petitioner. If the petitioner can be considered for appointment against any vacant post in terms of the 1999 Rules, for which a selection process has been initiated by the respondents, participation of the petitioner in the selection process would be subject to the petitioner

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

having all the requisite eligibility criteria for the said post.

¶33

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Bhanumati Roy @ Bhanumati Barman v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanumati Roy @ Bhanumati Barman v. the State of Assam and 6 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

Jibon Kalita and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bhagirathi Kairi Vs J.B.Ekka and Anr.

Siemngul Hmar and 27 Ors. Vs Nitin Khade and 2 Ors.

Suren Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Nabajyoti Borah Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smt. Bijaya Thakuria Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.