Allowed

Ranju Das v. State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Nov 2022WP(C)/3793/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, disabled candidate placed first on a merit list for a Grade-IV post in PHED under the Persons With Disabilities Act, approached via writ petition. The Court directed respondent departments to accordably appoint the petitioner based on the original select list within three months. Writ petition allowed to ensure compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to appoint the petitioner in the Grade-IV post in PHED as per the original select list within three months.

Ranju Das Vs State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010129802020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3793/2020

¶5

RANJU DAS

¶6

D/O- LT. MADHAB CHANDRA DAS, R/O- VILL- BILORTARY HATI, P.O. AND DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE SECY. GOVT. OF ASSAM, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. UZANBAZAR GHY-7

¶10

3:ADDL. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE UZANBAZAR GHY-1

¶11

4:CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT. HENGRABARI GHY-36

¶12

5:DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER BARPETA ASSAM GHY-781314

¶13

6:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPTT. BARPETA ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

GHY- 781301

¶16

7:BANAMALI DAS S/O LT. NIBARAN DAS R/O VILL. -GHORAMAHATI P.O- BARPETA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. S KHATANIAR

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶20

Date : 07-11-2022

¶21

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶22

Heard Ms. S Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. SM Hasan, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1, 4 and 6 being the authorities in the PHED, Mr. JK Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 5 being the authorities in the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Assam and Mr. A Mannaf, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.

¶23

The petitioner was called for an interview as per the call letter dated 15.06.2005 by the District Social Welfare Officer, Barpeta district for a post of Grade-IV, conducted by the office of the District Social Welfare Officer against backlog vacancies for Grade-IV under the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Pursuant to the said selection, a district wise merit list of orthopaedic handicapped candidate for Grade-IV post was published department wise and in respect of PHED, it was provided that one post in the office of the Chief Engineer, PHED is available. For the said post, a select list of four candidates in order of merit was

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

published, wherein the petitioner Ranju Das having secured 88 marks was placed at serial No. 1 and another candidate Bonomali Das having secured 81 marks was placed at serial No. 3.

¶26

A stand is taken by the respondents in the PHED that about 106 plus 07 other persons instituted two writ petitions WP(C) No. 1424/2011 and WP(C) No. 3994/2011 seeking for interfering with a Final State Level select list dated 15.02.2011 issued by the Director of Social Welfare, Assam. The said writ petitions were given a final consideration by the order dated 23.04.2015, wherein a direction was given to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners of the said two writ petitions in available vacancies related to a recruitment drive carried out in the year 2005.06. It was further provided that in view of the mandate of the Persons with Disabilities Act, all the concerned Administrative departments shall cooperate with the Social Welfare Department in ensuring that the writ petitioners are suitably accommodated against identified post in respective departments.

¶27

Mr. SM Hasan, learned counsel for the respondents in the Social Welfare Department states that the said order of this Court dated 23.04.2015 in the aforesaid two writ petitions depicted that there were some anomalies in the selection.

¶28

We have not noticed about any such conclusion of anomalies in the aforesaid order dated 23.04.2015. All that the Court had provided is that the writ petitioners therein be suitably accommodated against available vacant posts. The said provision by itself cannot mean that the select list prepared by the District Social Officer in respect of one post in the office of the Chief Engineer, PHED wherein the petitioner was the candidate at serial No. 1 in order of the merit was interfered in any manner.

¶29

Page No.# 4/4

¶30

As no materials have been produced that the said select list had either been recalled or interfered in any manner, we direct the respondents in the PHED and the Social Welfare Department to conjointly ensure that the select list at Annexure-B page 15 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner was selected at serial No. 1 for the one post in the office of the Chief Engineer, PHED is duly complied with and the petitioner be given the appropriate order of appointment. We have also taken note that by the interim order dated 13.09.2020, there was a provision that one post of Grade-IV in the PHED be kept vacant. For necessary compliance, the Social Welfare Department and the PHED may conjointly act on the matter and the needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶31

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Ranju Das v. State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranju Das v. 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

Mukul Medhi and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gulo Bibi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Dharanidhar Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smti. Mayuri Puzari Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

The Union of India Vs on the Death of Subhash Banik His Legal Heirs

Dipu Langthasa Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.