Dismissed

Trailukya Kumar Nath v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2024WP(C)/478/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of appointment as a Constable/Driver in the Central Reserve Police Force. The petitioner, an OBC candidate, failed to provide a certificate in the prescribed format for selection and verification, leading to his exclusion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed; parties bear own costs.

Trailukya Kumar Nath Vs the Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010011272017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/478/2017

¶5

TRAILUKYA KUMAR NATH

¶6

ROLL NO. 21012000501, S/O. DINA BANDHU NATH, R/O. VILL. WABORI, MIKIRBHETA, MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA and 7 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI.

¶11

3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTH EAST SECTOR CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE SHILLONG STONEY BISHOP ROAD SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN. 793001.

¶12

4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ADM NORTH EAST SECTOR CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE SHILLONG STONEY BISHOP ROAD SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN. 793001.

¶13

5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GROUP CENTRE KHATKHATI KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN. 781023.

¶16

6:SRI KAMAL KRISHNA BARMAN S/O. LAL MOHAN BARMAN ROLL. NO. 21012000422. 7:LUHIT BORA S/O. DWIJEN BORA ROLL NO. 21012000500.

¶17

8:SHYAM CHANDRA MUTUA S/O. KULA CHANDRA SINGHA ROLL NO. 21012000642. COPY TO BE SERVED TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT NO. 6

¶18

7 AND 8 THROUGH THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ADM NORTH EAST SECTOR CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE SHILLONG STONEY BISHOP ROAD SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN. 793001

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R MAZUMDAR

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : MS.B SARMA

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 12-02-2024

¶24

Heard Mr. R Mazumder learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B Sharma learned CGC.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner

¶26

Page No.# 3/4

¶27

participated in the selection process initiated by the respondent authorities for filing up the post of Constable/Driver in Central Reserve Police Force pursuant to an advertisement dated 22.01.2016.

¶28

The petitioner belongs to OBC category and the last selected person in the OBC category has obtained less mark than the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been selected for the post earmarked for the OBC category.

¶29

The respondent has taken a specific stand that the petitioner did not submit a valid OBC certificate in proper format while making the application for selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.01.2016. Though the petitioner had also failed to produce such a certificate at the stage of document verification, the petitioner claims that he had sent an acceptable and due OBC certificate through post. However, the respondents have denied receipt of any such certificate and accordingly contends that in view of non availability of OBC certificate, the petitioner was not considered against OBC category and accordingly, he was not offered appointment.

¶30

There is no dispute that the OBC certificate annexed along with the application was not in the format as prescribed under the advertisement and there is also no dispute that the petitioner could not produce the certificate in proper format during the course of verification of record.

¶31

In the aforesaid backdrop, this court cannot find fault with the respondent authorities and cannot conclude the respondent authorities had discriminated the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be granted benefit of higher marks when he has failed to

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

submit the OBC certificate at appropriate time and stage in terms of the prescription of the advertisement.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, this court finds no merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

¶35

Parties to bear their own cost.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Trailukya Kumar Nath v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trailukya Kumar Nath v. the Union of India and 7 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

Jahangir Ali Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Amiya Roy Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kutubuddin Talukdar Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Alam Hussain Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Abhijit Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Chandra Kanta Barman Vs Smt. Kavita Deka