In this writ petition regarding employment in Central Armed Police Forces, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge based on delay and laches, citing two recent coordinate orders that dismissed similar petitions filed years after results were declared.
Writ petition dismissed on account of delay and laches.
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
GAHC010185562024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5391/2024
ROSHAN SUBBA
S/O HARKA BAHADUR SUBBA, R/O VILL- RANGA DE RESERVE, P.O.MERBIL, P.S.-LALUK, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784160
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001
2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC)
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003
3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION RUKMINI NAGAR GUWAHATI-06
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE (BSF) BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD PRAGATI VIHAR NEW DELHI-110003
5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF)
Page No.# 2/4
BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110003
6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110003 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-793011 8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER FORCE (ITBP) BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SHAHASRA SEEMA BAL (SSB) 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-11002
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS. D. DEVI,MS K BARMAN,MS CHITRALEKHA DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS S BARUAH (CGC)
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO
ORDER
Date : 08.11.2024
Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner responded to the employment notice dated 21/07/2018 for recruitment to the post of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018.
2. According to the petitioner, he participated in the selection process and he secured marks more than the last candidate who was selected from the unreserved category. The petitioner belongs to the OBC category. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the marks declared by the Staff Selection Commission. It may be seen that the instant selection process happened in the year 2018 and according to the counsel for the petitioner, the final result was declared on 28.01.2021.
3. At this stage Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC, who represent the respondent Union of India has produced two orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court i.e. order dated 28.06.2024 passed in WP(C) no. 3322 of 2024 (Sajal Sinha and 2 others Versus The Union of India and 9 others) and order dated 23.10.2024 passed in WP(C) no. 4425 of 2024 (Manash Protim Gogoi Versus The Union of India and 4 others) , and submits that the instant writ petition is also hit by delay & laches and should be dismissed.
Page No.# 4/4
4. From a perusal of the said orders it is seen that the petitioners there in had also claimed similar relief after they were not selected in terms of the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 21.07.2018. The writ petitions were dismissed on account of delay and laches. The claim of the petitioner in the instant case from a perusal of the materials on record are found to be similar and identical.
5. Since according to the petitioner himself the result were declared on 28.01.2021, the writ petition having been filed only on 06.09.2024, the same is found to be hit by delay and laches and accordingly the same is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 is maintainable in view of delay and laches.
Whether the claim of the petitioner is similar to and hit by the same fate as in two other recent coordinate judgments.
ROSHAN SUBBA
THE UNION OF INDIA
THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC)
NELSON SAILO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
