Dismissed

Sayeda Marjina Begum v. the State of Assam and 21 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Jun 2022WP(C)/4001/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a selection list for Peon posts, alleging based on higher educational qualifications of some candidates and insufficient marks. Court dismissed the petition holding she had no locus standi as she was ineligible and failed to demonstrate any violation of her legal rights.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it fails on the question of locus standi and lack of violation of legal rights.

Sayeda Marjina Begum Vs the State of Assam and 21 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010113142022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4001/2022

¶5

SAYEDA MARJINA BEGUM

¶6

C/O- BADRUL ISLAM, R/O- BARAJAL, NALBARI, P.O. BARAJAL, P.S. GHAGRAPAR, PIN- 781367, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 21 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, BLOCK-C, 3RD FLOOR, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶9

2:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM 3:THE REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE) GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM

¶10

4:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTERS ULUBARI GUWAHATI ASSAM-781007.

¶11

5:THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT E BLOCK 2ND FLOOR ASSAM SECRETARIAT

¶12

Page No.# 2/9

¶13

DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 6:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AMINGAON KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031. 7:THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AMINGAON KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031. 8:SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KAMRUP GUWAHATI- BAIHATA ROAD TRIPTI NAGAR AMINGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM-781031. 9:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE CHANGSARI POLICE STATION CHANGSARI ASSAM-781101. 10:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE NORTH GUWAHATI OUT POST NH-31 KALI PAHAR ASSAM-781039. 11:DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT LOWER ASSAM ZONE REHABARI GUWAHATI PIN- 781008 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 12:HEMLATA KALITA C/O- LATE MANIK KALITA VILL.- KAHARA P.O. PUTHIMARI

¶14

Page No.# 3/9

¶15

P.S. KAMALPUR DIST. KAMRUP(R) ASSAM PIN- 701380. 13:PRADUMNA HAJONG C/O- DEGENDRA HAJONG VILL.- KADAMTALA GOPALPUR P.O. AND P.S. MATIA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783125.

¶16

14:SUDARSHANA MISRA C/O- BHABESH MISRA VILL- PROFESSOR COLONY NEAR SCAMEWO GLOBAL SCHOOL P.O. AND P.S. AZARA DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781017. 15:UTPAL RAJBONGSHI C/O- NAGEMN RAJBONGSHI VILL.NO.1 TITKURI P.O. TITKURI P.S RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781354. 16:PRANKRISHNA DAS C/O- BISHNURAM DAS VILL.- HAJO GAYAN TOLA P.O. AND P.S. HAJO DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781102.

¶17

17:KULADA NANDA DAS C/O- LATE TRAILOKYA DAS VILL.- DAKUAPARA P.O. AND P.S. BOKO DIST. KAMRUP(R) ASSAM PIN- 781123. 18:HIMANGSHU SARMA

¶18

Page No.# 4/9

¶19

C/O- HEMCHANDRA SARMA VILL. MATHURAPUR P.O. AND P.S. TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781371. 19:BIKASH NATH C/O- GOLAK NATH VILL.- KARAIBARI P.O. ANDHERIGHAT P.S. SIPAJHAR DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784148. 20:PRATISH HAJONG C/O- DEGENDRA HAJONG VILL.- KADAMTALA GOPALPUR P.O. AND P.S. MATIA DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783125. 21:ASHIM DAS C/O- MADHARAM HIRA VILL.- PIYALI PHUKAN NAGAR P.O. BAMUNIMAIDAM P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781021. 22:DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY KAMRUP(R) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES COURT CAMPUS AMINGAON ASSA

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶21

Page No.# 5/9

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶23

ORDER

¶24

17.06.2022

¶25

Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner participated in the selection process, for filling up 3 vacant posts of Peon in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kamrup, Amingaon, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 22.10.2021. The office of the CJM, Kamrup thereafter issued Notification dated 09.12.2021, wherein the list of accepted and rejected applications were notified. The petitioner’s application was amongst the accepted 318 applications and as such, the petitioner took part in the written test.

¶26

The office of the CJM, Kamrup thereafter issued a Notification dated 17.01.2022, giving the result of the written test conducted on 09.12.2021 for the post of Peon. The said notification stated that the candidates who had obtained 42 or above marks out of 70 marks, were qualified for interview-cum-document verification to be conducted on 06.02.2022. The petitioner who had secured only 25 marks did not qualify for the interview-cum-document verification.

¶27

The petitioner’s grievance is that while the eligibility criteria of the candidates for filling up the 3 posts of Peon was Class-VIII pass, candidates who had higher secondary pass and above qualifications, who were not eligible to apply for the said post, in terms of the

¶28

Page No.# 6/9

¶29

Advertisement dated 22.10.2021 had participated in the selection process. He submits that the office of the CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon thereafter issued Notification dated 17.02.2022, which showed the names of the 3 selected candidates and the names of 5 candidates, who were kept in the waiting list. He submits that out of the 3 names who were selected for the post of Peon, the persons who secured the 1^st and 2^nd position (respondent nos. 17 & 18) did not join their posts. Further, the 3^rd position holder (respondent no.12) was a graduate and as such could not have been selected. He submits that the candidates in the waiting list would now have to be accommodated in place of the selected candidates, provided they have all the required eligibility criteria.

¶30

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has written a representation to the Registrar General of this Court on 29.01.2022, with a prayer for holding an enquiry to remove all candidates, who have been allowed to take part in the selection process, but who were having higher educational qualification than the Class-XI pass. However, the Registrar General has not taken any action on the petitioner’s representation. He also submits that the petitioner had submitted an FIR dated 29.03.2022 to the Officer-in-charge, North Guwahati Outpost and an FIR dated 30.03.2022 to the S.P., Kamrup to investigate the candidates who had appeared in the selection process pursuant to the Advertisement dated 22.10.2021. However, the police have not registered any case on the basis of the FIRs till date.

¶31

Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3, 6 & 7

¶32

Page No.# 7/9

¶33

and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate for the respondent nos.1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 22 submit that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to file the present writ petition, as he had not attained the qualifying marks for participating in the interview. They further submit that if the police have not registered the FIRs of the petitioner, the petitioner has an alternative remedy by applying the provisions of the Code of Criminal Proceeding and approaching the appropriate Criminal Court with his grievance.

¶34

Mr. H.K. Das, learned counsel for the Gauhati High Court submits that the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to the educational qualification of respondent no.12 will be looked into by the High Court.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶36

A perusal of the averments made in the writ petition and the annexures show that the petitioner believes that the respondent nos.12, 15 & 16 have higher educational qualifications then is permitted, in terms of the Advertisement dated 22.10.2021, for participating in the selection process for filling up the 3 vacant posts of Peon. The respondent nos.17 & 18, who have been placed at Sl. Nos.1 & 2 of the Select List have apparently declined to join the said vacant posts of Peon. The only question that has to be decided is with regard to the educational qualification of the respondent no.12, who has secured the

¶37

3^rd position in the Select List. As the counsel for the Gauhati High Court has taken a stand that the educational qualification of the respondent

¶38

Page No.# 8/9

¶39

no.12 will be looked into, this Court is of the view that the said issue need not detain this Court any longer. There is nothing in the writ petition to show that the educational qualification of the other private respondents, who are in the waiting list is beyond the permitted educational qualification provided in the Advertisement dated 22.10.2021 and as such, this Court is not inclined to go into the question whether the said respondents were ineligible to participate in the selection process, as there is no documents provided in the writ petition to that effect.

¶40

The petitioner herein has not been able to show this Court as to what legal or fundamental right of her’s has been violated, inasmuch as, the petitioner was ineligible to participate in the interview and she has not made any challenge to the said fact in this writ petition.

¶41

In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Versus State of Maharashtra & Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Apex Court has held that only an aggrieved person can file a writ petition for enforcement of any legal or fundamental right that might have been violated. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show that any legal or fundamental right of hers has been violated, especially with respect to the respondents whose names figure in the waiting list. It may also be mentioned that altogether 49 candidates were eligible to take part in the interview excluding the petitioner, for filling up of 3 vacant posts of Peon.

¶42

Page No.# 9/9

¶43

The case of the petitioner seems to be a classic example of sour grapes , inasmuch as, a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome, as held by the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah & Others vs Anil Joshi & Others, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 . Further, with regard to the stand taken by the petitioner that no case has been registered on the basis of the FIRs submitted by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that there being an alternative remedy available, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsels for the respondents, the petitioner may approach the appropriate forum with regard to his grievance regarding nonregistration of his FIRs, as per the Code of Criminal Proceeding. The prayer of the writ petitioner to conduct an enquiry with regard to all the candidates, to determine whether they were having the requisite qualification for participating in the selection process cannot be acceded to by this Court, as a roving enquiry should not be conducted on the basis of the petitioner’s speculations in respect of only 3 candidates out of the 49 candidates, who were eligible to take part in the interview. However, the State respondents should ensure that only those persons are appointed, who have the eligibility criteria for being appointed to the 3 vacant posts of Peon.

¶44

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds no merit the writ petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Sayeda Marjina Begum v. the State of Assam and 21 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayeda Marjina Begum v. the State of Assam and 21 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eftikar Hussain Vs Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati and 2 Ors.

Ranjit Kumar Das Vs the Assam Financial Corporation and 4 Ors.

Dhaneswar Deka and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Jogen Sinha Vs Barnali Sharma and Anr.

Parbati Basfor Vs Varsha Basfor and 4 Ors.

Smt. Sumila Boro Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.