Dismissed

Manoj Kr Borah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Aug 2022WP(C)/4504/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging preferential appointment eligibility. The court held that the petitioner, being only a nephew of an uncle injured during the Assam Movement, does not fall within the definition of 'member of family' under the Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition was dismissed for being devoid of merit.

Manoj Kr Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010132512022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4504/2022

¶5

MANOJ KR BORAH

¶6

S/O SRI PUNARAM BORAH, R/O VILL-LATABOWA GAYANA CHOOK, P.O.BORANGATOLI, P.S.-RUPAHIHAT, DIST-NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782141

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ASSAM ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶10

2:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL (B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶11

GUWAHATI-06

¶12

3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR

¶13

GUWAHATI-06

¶14

4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON P.O. AND DIST-NAGAON ASSAM

¶15

5:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION FOR GRADE-IV POSTS ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-2

¶16

Page No.# 2/2

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD B ISLAM

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

06.08.2022

¶23

Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s paternal uncle sustained a bullet injury during the Assam Movement and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to preferential appointment in terms of the Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999, herein after referred to as the 1999 Rules.

¶24

2. Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 and Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 3. They submit that the petitioner cannot be considered for preferential appointment in terms of the 1999 Rules, as the petitioner does not come within the definition of ‘member of family’.

¶25

3. A perusal of the 1999 Rules shows that only a member of family, as defined in Section 2 (d) of the 1999 Rules is entitled to preferential appointment under the 1999 Rules. Section 2 (d) of the 1999 Rules defines ‘member of family’ to mean son, daughter of the spouse or brother or sister of a martyr or a physically disabled person. As the definition of ‘member of family’ does not include within its fold, the nephew of the paternal uncle, the petitioner cannot be said to be the member of his paternal uncle’s family.

¶26

4. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Manoj Kr Borah v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kr Borah v. the State of Assam and 4 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

Mira Begum Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Md. Idrish Ali Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Mazibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Sarifuddin Ahmed Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Dinesh Chandra Das Vs the Assam State Housing Board and 2 Ors.

Pomi Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.