Dismissed

Dr. Narendra Nath Ganguly v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Sept 2022WP(C)/4114/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court considered a writ petition challenging the observation 'None found suitable' in the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for a professor post. The court held the language stigmatic and ordered its replacement with 'Not selected'.

What did the court decide?

Directed that in the petitioner's rejection record, the words 'None found suitable' be struck out and replaced with 'Not selected'.

Dr. Narendra Nath Ganguly Vs the Union of India and 5… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010118572022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4114/2022

¶5

DR. NARENDRA NATH GANGULY

¶6

S/O MR. NK GANGULY, ADD- 12, JYOTIPRASAD AGARWALA BYE LANE, BISHNURABHA PATH, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI, DIST-KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN-781028

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, ADD- ROOM NOS. 514-B/A, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110011

¶9

2:ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE BHUBANESWAR REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ADD- SIJUA PATRAPADA BHUBANESHWAR ODISHA-751019

¶10

3:THE DIRTECTOR ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE BHUBANESWAR ADD-SIJUA PATRAPADA BHUBANESHWAR ODISHA-751019

¶11

4:ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ADD-SIBHARAL

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

CHANGSARI DIST-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM-781030 5:THE DIRECTOR ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE GUWAHATI ADD-SIBHARAL CHANGSARI DIST-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM-781030 6:THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE GUWAHATI ADD-SIBHARAL CHANGSARI DIST-KAMRUP(M) ASSAM-78103

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F KHAN

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

05.09.2022

¶19

Heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel for all the respondents.

¶20

The petitioner herein had applied for the post of Professor, General Surgery in All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), Guwahati, pursuant to the Advertisement dated 05.10.2021. The petitioner was the sole candidate in the interview for the said post. The respondent nos.2 to 6 have rejected the petitioner’s candidature for the vacant post citing the reason “None found

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

suitable”.

¶23

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has been working for 29 years and is presently holding the post of Professor of Surgery in Jorhat Medical College & Hospital, Jorhat.

¶24

The petitioner’s counsel submits that though the petitioner has made various prayers in the writ petition, the petitioner would like to restrict his prayer, by praying for setting aside the observation “None found suitable”, made with respect to the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the use of the words “None found suitable” is stigmatic and casts a shadow on the general practice of the petitioner.

¶25

Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel for all the respondents submits that he has got no objection, if the prayer of the petitioner to the extent that the words “None found suitable” is set aside. However, the decision of the respondents not to appoint the petitioner will remain, on the ground that he is not selected. Accordingly, he submits that the words “Not selected” should replace the word “None found suitable”.

¶26

The petitioner’s counsel does not have any objection to the proposal made by the counsel for the respondents.

¶27

On considering the prayer made by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the word “None found suitable” should be set aside. Accordingly, the words

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

“None found suitable” while rejecting the petitioner’s application is set aside and in it’s place “Not selected” should be reflected.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Dr. Narendra Nath Ganguly v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Narendra Nath Ganguly v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Ch. Nath Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sokuntala Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Monuj Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Jahena Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Abul Kalam Azad and 16 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Monoj Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.