Dismissed

Jakir Hussain v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Jun 2023WP(C)/7573/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment based on a 2005 recruitment process. The Court held that directing implementation of a select list after 18 years was not feasible and the petitioner faced bar due to excessive delay and past conduct.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition stands dismissed; earlier interim order is vacated.

Jakir Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010055162017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/7573/2017

¶5

JAKIR HUSSAIN

¶6

S/O- AMJAD HUSSAIN R/O- WARD NO.14, BALURCHAR P.O. and P.S.DHUBRI, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE ASSAM UZANBAZAR GHY-1

¶11

4:DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER P.O. and DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301

¶12

5:DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 19.

¶13

6:DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B HUSSAIN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A. PHUKAN, SC, ELEM. EDU

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶19

ORDER

¶20

14.06.2023

¶21

Heard Shri B. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri P.K. Borah, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department who submits that the respondent nos. 5 & 6 were subsequently impleaded.

¶22

Considering the subject matter and the fact that this writ petition is pending since the year 2017, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶23

The facts projected is that a recruitment process was initiated in the year 2005 vide an advertisement dated 09.06.2005 for filling up 662 Nos. of posts as backlog vacancy in the State for physically disable persons which was to be conducted in each district. It is submitted that the petitioner who falls within that category was selected in the District Level as well as in the State Level and 528 appointments were made but the petitioner was not appointed. It is submitted that there were enquiries by the Government on certain anomalies. It is further submitted that in the year 2011, some of the candidates had filed writ petitions in this Court which were disposed of in their favour.

¶24

This present writ petition has thereafter been filed in the year 2017. The

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court while issuing notice vide order dated 08.12.2017 had directed that one post of M.E. School Teacher in the district of Dhubri earmarked for visually impaired physically disabled person be kept vacant.

¶27

Shri Borah, the learned counsel for the Department however submits that the recruitment was initiated in the year 2005 and after 12 long years the present writ petition has been filed. He further submits that the select list has spent its force in the meantime and therefore, no relief can be granted.

¶28

After hearing the parties, this Court has noted that cause of action, if any, had arisen immediately after the recruitment process when the petitioner was deprived of the appointment as claimed by him. Though certain persons had approached this Court in the year 2011, it appears that the petitioner was sitting on the fence and the instant writ petition has been filed after 12 years of the said recruitment process.

¶29

This Court finds force in the contention made on behalf of the Department that a select list pertaining to a recruitment process initiated in the year 2005 cannot be directed to be acted upon after about 18 years. This Court being a Court of equity cannot lose sight of the aspects of examining the conduct of the petitioner which is of immense importance.

¶30

In that view of the matter, writ petition stands dismissed.

¶31

Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Jakir Hussain v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jakir Hussain v. the State of Assam and 3 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

Phukan Das Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Amal Kumar Singha Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Jafor Ali and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Jyoti Prasad Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Md. Samsujjaman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Jiba Kanta Gogoi and 10 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.