Petitioners challenged the issuance of appointments from a select list excluding them, alleging a different list including their names was valid. The Court found a serious disputed question of fact rather than clarity, noting lack of a criminal complaint.
Liberty granted to parties to take appropriate legal recourse.
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.# 1/4
GAHC010008462015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/721/2015
ALIM UDDIN LASKAR and ANR. S/O LT. HARUN RAHSID LASKAR, VILL. BARBOND PT-I, P.S. and DISTHAILAKANDI, ASSAM
2: FIRUJ UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O LT. ABDUL KHALEQUE BARBHUIYA VILL. BARBOND PT-I P.S. and DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS REP. BY CHIEF SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-6
2:DY. COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI
3:SIRAJ UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O LT. SOFIQUL HAQUE BARBHUI VILL. ALGAPUR PT-V P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR DIST- HAILAKANDI
4:SOWMAN GHOSH S/O SRI SANJIB GHOSH MOHILA SAMITI ROAD W/NO.9 P.O. and DIST- HAILAKANDI
5:BIPRA PRASAD CHAKRABORTY S/O BISHNU PADA CHAKRABORTY COLLEGE ROAD W/NO.13
Page No.# 2/4
P.O. and DIST- HAILAKANDI
6:SUKANTA BARMAN C/O SANTUSH BARMAN HAILAKANDI TOWN W/NO.14 P.O. LAKSMISAHAR DIST- HAILAKANDI
7:DIJVAK LONG RONGMAI S/O SRI PONGA LONG RONGMAI NAGA COLONY W/NO.1 P.O. and DIST- HAILAKANDI
8:CHIRANJIT BARMAN S/O BIPUL CHANDRA BARMAN C/O RAJAT CHAKRABORTY HAILAKANDI TOWN W/NO. 12 SHIB BARI ROAD P.O. and DIST- HAILAKANDI
9:DASARATH BARMAN S/O GOKUL BARMAN VILL. MOHANPUR LALPANI P.O. LALPANI DIST- HAILAKANDI
10:L. NUNGSHITHOL SINGHA S/O LT. L. RAMAN SINGHA H/NO.76 THINGOMKHUL P.O. SUDARSHANPUR PT-III DIST- HAILAKANDI
11:KISHANJIT SINGHA S/O SRI NIRMAL SINGHA VILL. RONGPUR PT-III P.O. RANGABAK PT-II DIST- HAILAKAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D K DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. S DOLEY (R-3 TO 11)
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 16/05/2023
Heard Mr. N. H. Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondents.
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 04/01/2014, the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi i.e. the respondent no. 2 had invited applications for filling up 5 (five) vacant posts of Process Server and 6 (six) posts of Peon. Out of 6 (six) posts of Peon, 2(two) were reserved for being filled up by way of compassionate appointment. The two writ petitioners herein, claims to have participated in the recruitment process. According to the petitioners, a select list was published on 26/12/2014 containing the names of 11 selected candidates and in the said select list, the names of the petitioners appeared in Serial No. 1 and 8 respectively. Notwithstanding the same, no order of appointment had been issued in their favour. On the contrary, another select list dated 26/12/2014 was published, which contained the name of 9(nine) selected candidates without the writ petitioners. Contending that the respondents have changed the select list only to favour persons of their choice, the instant writ petition has been filed.
By filing an affidavit, the respondent no. 2 has categorically stated that the select list dated 26/12/2014 containing the name of 11 (eleven) candidates is not genuine, inasmuch, no such select list was ever published by the respondent no. 2. Rather, the departmental authorities had published the select list dated 26/12/2014 containing the name of 9(nine) selected candidates, which did not include the names of the 2 (two) writ petitioners.
Mr. Chutia, learned Government Advocate, Assam, has also argued that the select list containing the names of 11 (eleven) selected candidates including the petitioners is a forged list and the same was never published by the competent authorities. Rather, the list containing the names of
Page No.# 4/4
9(nine) candidates is the genuine one and appointments have already been made from that select list. If that be so, it is apparent that there is a seriously disputed question of fact involved in this case pertaining to the question as to which of the two select lists is valid. The said question cannot be resolved in this writ petition. Moreover, if it is really the case of the department that a forged select list was shown to have been published, then the matter would call for further investigation under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. However, since no FIR has been lodged by either side till today, the machinery under the Cr.P.C. has not been activated till date.
As such, by granting liberty to the parties to take appropriate legal recourse in the matter, as may be permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
sukhamay
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court can adjudicate on a dispute regarding the validity of conflicting recruitment select lists without a police complaint.
Alim Uddin Laskar
Firu Uddin Barbhuiya
State of Assam
Dy. Commissioner Hailakandi
suman shyam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
