Allowed

Dharmendra Ray and 7 Ors. v. the Union of India and Anr.

Gauhati HC12 May 2023WP(C)/1522/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges non-selection of OBC candidates in CAPFs despite scoring more marks than selected general candidates, claiming error in treating their qualifying marks. The Court treated it as a covered case, directing issuance of appointment orders in CAPFs or other Armed Police Forces within six months. https://indiacode.in/latest-judgments/2023/07/gauhati-high-court-disposes-wp-c-

What did the court decide?

Issuance of orders of appointment as Constable (GD) in CAPFs or Armed Police Forces within six months.

Dharmendra Ray and 7 Ors. Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010037222021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1522/2021

¶5

DHARMENDRA RAY AND 7 ORS S/O ADHIN CH ROY

¶6

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMTOLA, PO NORTH SALMARA, PS ABHAYAPURI, DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, 783383

¶7

2: SRI JOON KR. RAY S/O DANDESWAR RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEOHATI UTTARPARA PO DEOHATI PS ABHYAPURI DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783384

¶8

3: SRI JANARDHAN RAY S/O HARESWAR RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAKAIJANA PS ABHAYAPURI DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783383

¶9

4: SRI JHALAK CHETRY

¶10

S/O DEV BAHADUR CHETRY RESIDENT OF NO. 2 JHAKUAPARA PART II PO PS AND DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783380

¶11

5: SRI MRIGEN RAY S/O LATE PEULA RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHAKUAPARA PART I PURANI BONGAIGAON PO

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

PS AND DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783380

¶14

6: SRI PRONAB RAY S/O DILIP KR. RAY R/O VILLAGE ULUBARI PURANI BONGAIGAON PO PS AND DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783380

¶15

7: SRI KANDARPA RAY S/O BHUBAN RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TULUNGIA PART II PO NORTH SALMARA PS ABHAYAPURI DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM

¶16

8: SRI RABI SANKAR RAY S/O SUDHIR CHANDRA RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHUNGHUNIKHATA PART I PO FUTKIBARI PS SAPATGRAM DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 78334

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

¶19

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 1

¶20

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BLOCK 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI INDI

¶21

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA

¶22

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

¶23

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Date : 12/05/2023

¶27

Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents.

¶28

The petitioners herein belong to the OBC category. In response to the advertisement notice dated 21/07/2018 for recruitment in the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), the petitioners had submitted their candidature and had also participated in the selection process. However, on conclusion of the process, the petitioners were not selected. The reason for not doing so is on account of the fact that the marks obtained by the petitioners were considered along with the other candidates belonging to the OBC category and it was observed that since the petitioners have already availed the relaxation for chest and height measurement prescribed for the candidates coming from Assam, they could not be considered along with the general category candidates. However, the fact remains that the petitioners had scored more marks than some of the general category candidates, who were ultimately selected and appointed by the authorities.

¶29

Similarly situated petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) 3764/2021 raising a similar grievance. After taking note of the facts of the case as well as the law laid down by the Delhi High Court in Hemant Pokhriyal Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. [WP(C) 4982/2021 decided on 01/10/2021] and also the decision rendered in the case of Arpan Chowdhury Vs. Union of India and others rendered by the Tripura High Court in connection with WP(C) 117/2021, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petitioners were entitled to receive orders of appointment. According, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to accommodate those petitioners in any of the CAPFs, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶30

By referring to the order dated 11/08/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 3764/2021, Mr. Saikia submits that this is a covered case and, therefore, be disposed of with a similar

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

direction.

¶33

Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC, in his usual fairness, has conceded that the petitioners’ case would be covered by the previous decision of this Court but submits that since in the meantime, all the vacant posts of Constable (GD) in the CAPFs coming under the advertisement notice dated 21/07/2018 have already been filled up, the petitioners may be accommodated in any other Armed Police Force.

¶34

Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients would have no objection if such a recourse is taken as long as they are issued the orders of appointment without further delay.

¶35

Taking note of the submission advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, this writ petition is hereby disposed of by providing that the respondents may issue orders of appointment to the petitioners appointing them as Constable (GD) in any of the division of the Central Armed Police Forces or in any other Armed Police Force, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶36

With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

sukhamay

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Dharmendra Ray and 7 Ors. v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Ray and 7 Ors. v. the Union of India and Anr.

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

Daoharu Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and 4 Othrs

Dr. Deepak Kumar Gogoi, Vs Shivangi Gogoi and Anr.

Biplab Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Pallab Jyoti Roy and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Nirmal Chandra Das and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Rajat Subhra Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.