Dismissed
Pomi Saikia v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.
Gauhati HCWP(C)/4919/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
GAHC010132522022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT…
What the court decided
AI extract
GAHC010132522022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT…
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.# 1/3
GAHC010132522022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4919/2022
POMI SAIKIA
WIFE OF SRI ARUN SAIKIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BOR RAIDONGIA, P.O.- AIBHETI, P.S. JAJARI, DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782002.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ASSAM ACCORD IMPLEMENTATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
GUWAHATI-06.
4:THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT ASSAM PARIBAHAN BHAWAN JAWAHARNAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22.
5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON P.O. AND DISTRICT- NAGAON ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/3
6:THE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT COMMISSION FOR GRADE-III/IV POSTS
ASSAM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF COLLEGE JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD B ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
06.08.2022
Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner’s father-in-law was killed 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.
2. Ms. M.D Borah, learned counsel appears for all the respondents. She 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’.
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 a daughter-in-law, the petitioner cannot be said to be the member of her father-in-law’s family.
Page No.# 3/3
4. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a daughter-in-law qualifies as a 'member of family' eligible for preferential appointment under the Assam Public Services (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999.
Whether eligibility for preferential appointment extends to the wife of a martyr's son despite the statutory definition.
Whether the writ petition for preferential appointment stands dismissed due to non-compliance with the Rules.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
POMI SAIKIA
THE STATE OF ASSAM
THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT ASSAM
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NAGAON
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court