Writ petition seeking to challenge rejection from a recruitment process in which the petitioner failed to furnish required referee details. The Court upheld the summary rejection, finding no infirmity in following mandatory eligibility criteria for incomplete applications.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010119172022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4027/2022
EFTIKAR HUSSAIN
S/O. RASHMIL ALI, VILL. AND P.O. BARNI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN781102.
VERSUS
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, GUWAHATI AND 2 ORS. ASSAM, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, AMINGAON, GUWAHATI-781039.
2:THE REGISTRAR
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (IIT) GUWAHATI AMINGAON GUWAHATI-781039.
3:THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGIEER IIT GUWAHATI AMINGAON GUWAHATI-781039
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IIT
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 16-06-2022
Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in terms of the advertisement dated 11.01.2022 by submitting his on-line application.
2. The last date of submission of the application was 21.02.2022. Thereafter, the respondents issued the notification dated 31.05.2022, which showed the names of 15 (fifteen) candidates, who were shortlisted for the vacant post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The notification dated 31.05.2022 also contained the names of 41 (forty-one) candidates, whose names were not shortlisted for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner’s name was at Sl. No. 29 of the list of candidates not shortlisted for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The notification dated 31.05.2022 states that candidates, who have not been shortlisted, may submit their representations (if any) through e-mail to the under mentioned e-mail i.d, within 7 (seven) working days (by 08.06.2022) from the date of issue of the notification dated 31.05.2022.
3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner submitted his representation dated 06.06.2022 stating that he was not shortlisted for consideration for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, as he had not mentioned the names of referee/references as per Sl. No. 21 of the application form in pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.01.2022. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted 2 (two) names of referee/references along with the designation organization, e-mail, phone number and address as required in the
Page No.# 3/5
application form pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.01.2022, vide letter dated 06.06.2022 and requested that his name should be shortlisted for consideration.
4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner should be called for interview as has been done in the case of Sl. No. 4 of the “list of candidates not shortlisted for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer”. He submits that the non-mentioning of the names of referee/references, as required under Clause 21 of the application form was a genuine mistake committed by the petitioner, which should be condoned.
5. Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sutradal, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents submits that as per the general information No. 10 of the advertisement dated 11.01.2022, all incomplete applications/ partially filled application forms/ applications without supporting documents were to be summarily rejected. He submits that the petitioner having not filled up Clause 21 of the application form, requiring the names of referee/references and as the petitioner had submitted the same only after the short listing of the names of candidates have been made, there was no infirmity in rejecting the petitioner’s application for appointment to the vacant post.
6. Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned senior counsel has also submitted the extract of the proceedings of the IIT Guwahati dated 08.06.2022, which is to the effect that though the application of Sl. No. 4 was rejected initially, as he was in the “list of names not shortlisted for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer”, he was subsequently shortlisted for consideration, as the said Sl. No. 4 had submitted 2 (two) applications forms within the prescribed period. While one
Page No.# 4/5
application form, i.e., 202214020815168 was incomplete, the second application form, i.e., 202214020815463 was complete. As such, the representation submitted by Sl. No. 4 was accepted by the respondent authorities, on the ground that his second application form was complete in all respects.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. It is not disputed by the petitioner that the petitioner had not filled up Clause 21 of the application form, in pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.01.2022 at the time of submitting his online application. Though the petitioner had submitted certificates issued by the Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, RD & GR, Government of India dated 02.02.2022 showing that the petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer under Brahmaputra Board, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, RD & GR, Government of India since 03.09.2013, the petitioner had not filled up Clause 21 of the application form at the time of submitting his online application, besides not submitting any certificate with regard to the names of referee/references. He submitted the names of referee/references in terms of Clause 21 of the application form only on 06.06.2022, i.e., after the last date of submission of the on-line application had expired and after short listing of the candidates had been done.
9. In view of the fact that general information No. 10 provides for summary rejection of incomplete applications/ partially filled application forms/ applications without supporting documents, this Court does not find any infirmity with the decision of the respondent authorities not to allow the petitioner to take part in the selection process for appointment to the vacant
Page No.# 5/5
post of Assistant Executive Engineer in pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.01.2022.
10. Further, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot take the support from the decision of the respondent authorities in allowing Sl. No. 4 to take part in the proceedings while disallowing the petitioner, as the facts and circumstances for allowing the Sl. No. 4 mentioned in the “list of candidates who are not shortlisted for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer”, is different from the facts of the petitioner’s case.
11. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to condone the delay in submitting reference names for recruitment
Whether the respondent authorities acted with infirmity in summarily rejecting an incomplete application of record
Eftikar Hussain
Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati
Michael Zothankhuma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
