The Assam Public Service Commission and Anr. Vs Kanchan Hazarika and 7 Ors.

5:THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 06 6:THE STATE COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY STATE COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781019. 7:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 8:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781003

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DUTTA, MS. P P DAS,MR. A BORUA,MS P SARMA,MR. T J MAHANTA

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, MR. K N CHOUDHURY(R-1 TO 3),N GAUTAM(R-1 TO 3),MR. D J DAS(R-1 TO 3)

¶21

Linked Case : WP(C)/5882/2022

¶22

MS BHABITA DEKA DAUGHTER OF SRI PARASHU DEKA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAGAON

¶23

P.S.- RANGIA DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) PIN- 781380 ASSAM.

¶24

Page No.# 3/9

¶25

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI- 781003 ASSAM. 4:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI - 781022. 5:THE SECRETARY TO THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022. 6:THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022. 7:THE UNDER SECRETARY ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI- 781022. 8:THE STATE COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶26

Page No.# 4/9

¶27

STATE COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM GUWAHATI-781019 ASSAM 9:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 ASSAM. -----------Advocate for : MR. H. BURAGOHAIN Advocate for : SC IRRIGATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS.

¶28

Linked Case : WP(C)/5182/2022 SMT. KANCHAN HAZARIKA AND ANR. WIFE OF RANAJYOTI BORGOHAIN RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.1 SEUJ SARANI PATH LAKHIMI NAGAR HATIGAON IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M) PIN- 781006 ASSAM. 2: SMTI BONASHREE HAZARIKA WIFE OF AYAN JYOTI DEURI RESIDENT OF BHABANI RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX PUBERUN PATH HATIGAON GUWAHATI- 781038. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS GUWAHATI- 781022.

¶29

Page No.# 5/9

¶30

3:THE STATE COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY STATE COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781019. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM GUWAHATI- 781003. -----------Advocate for : MR. U K NAIR Advocate for : SC IRRIGATION appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.

¶31

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Date : 12.02.2025

¶34

Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 as well as Mr. N. Upadhayay, learned standing counsel for the Irrigation Department, representing respondent nos. 4, 5 and 8.

¶35

This review petition is directed against the order dated 24.06.2024

¶36

Page No.# 6/9

¶37

passed by this Court in WP(C) 5182/2022.

¶38

By the said order, the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC for short) was directed to declare the results of the petitioners in WP(C) 5182/2022, who are arrayed as respondent nos. 1 to 3 in this review petition. It was also projected that in the event the respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein are found to have secured marks which are higher than the last selected candidates in their respective categories, the results of the writ petitioners shall be issued as a supplementary/ revised results against the advertisement no. 06/2020 dated 19.08.2020.

¶39

The case of the review petitioner is that if the APSC is required to declare results of only the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and to issue a supplementary/ revised result for the same, they would be required to consider the names of 37 (thirty seven) other candidates, who are also required to be considered as there would be a change of cut of marks. Accordingly, it is projected that the entire result dated 19.07.2022 would have to be re-casted.

¶40

The learned senior counsel for the review petitioner has further submitted that in respect of the similar challenge, 3(three) other writ petitions are presently pending before this Court. He further submits that unless the Court clarifies that only the cases of the writ petitioners should be considered, the APSC would otherwise would not be able to comply with the order of the Court, which has necessitated filing of this review petition.

¶41

At this stage, the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, upon instructions, has submitted that several candidates who have cleared the APSC examination have not joined in the advertised posts. Accordingly, he has submitted that there are several vacant posts available for Junior Engineer (Civil) to be filled-up in the Irrigation Department.

¶42

Page No.# 7/9

¶43

In this regard, the learned standing counsel for the Irrigation Department has submitted that in view of the existing vacancies in the post of Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, the Irrigation Department has written a letter dated 25.11.2024 to the APSC to apprise the authorities that the Irrigation Department is ready to accept the diploma of Civil Engineering and Planning as equivalent to the required qualification for appointment in the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and that if the APSC finds the petitioners eligible for recommendation, suitable posts are available to accommodate them as 41(forty one) out of the 290(two ninety) candidates recommended by the APSC were not appointed and 31(thirty one) out of those appointed did not join.

¶44

The learned senior counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the said letter, the Secretary, APSC has sought for a clarification regarding vacant post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department in reference to WP(C) 5182/2022 and WP(C) 5882/2022, both relating to advertisement no. 06/2020 on the following points.

¶45

i. What is the total number of vacant posts available in regards to Advt. No. 006/2020?

¶46

ii. What are the vacancies available for each category of posts in regard to RFW(Reserve for Women) category as per Annexure-I format?

¶47

iii. Whether the ASPC will process only the result of the petitioners or it will include other candidates as well having same qualifications who were summarily rejected for not having required qualification as per terms and conditions of the aforesaid advertisement?

¶48

It is submitted in response to the said query, which was put up by letter dated 06.01.2025, the Irrigation Department has sent a reply dated 07.02.2025 indicating as follows:

¶49

Page No.# 8/9

¶50

i. The total number of vacant posts available in regard to Advt. No. 006/2020 is 72 (seventy two) numbers.

¶51

ii. The vacancies available for each category of posts in regard to RFW (Reserve for Women) category as per Annexure-I format is attached herewith.

¶52

iii. In this regard, it may be stated that, the Department has already taken the stand that the case of the petitioners only will be considered for recruitment subject to recommendation by APSC.

¶53

In view of the response dated 07.02.2025 submitted by the Irrigation Department, as extracted hereinbefore, as the projection by the Irrigation Department is that the total number of vacant post available as regards to advertisement no. 06/2020 is 72(seventy two) and that the vacancies available for each category of posts in regard to reserved for women category and a further stand that the Irrigation Department has taken a stand that the case of the petitioners only would be considered for recruitment, subject to recommendation by APSC, the Court is of the considered opinion that with the nature of clarification provided by the Irrigation Department, no triable issues arise for decision in the review petition.

¶54

Accordingly, with the clarification that as the Irrigation Department has accepted that they would consider the case of the petitioners for recruitment, subject to recommendation by APSC, this review petition stands disposed of with liberty to the APSC to take an appropriate decision as to whether he would act in accordance with the recommendation made by the Irrigation Department and bring the recruitment process vide advertisement no. 06/2020 to its logical conclusion preferably within a period of 1(one) month from the date of this order by confining the exercise to the petitioners of the pending writ petition. 12. In view of the facts unique to this case, the Court is inclined to further

¶55

Page No.# 9/9

¶56

clarify that this order is passed under unique circumstances and therefore, this order is not intended to be cited as a precedent for any future recruitment process.

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

Comparing Assistant

The Assam Public Service Commission and Anr. v. Kanchan Hazarika and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assam Public Service Commission and Anr. v. Kanchan Hazarika and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The School Management Committee Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

M/s Kooje Janggo Enterprises and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 6 Ors.

M/s Kooje Janggo Enterprises and Anr. Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Bijoy Krishna Dam Vs the Sribhumi Municipal Board (Erstwhile Karimganj Municipal Board) and 3 Ors.

Nokren Jamikham Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Smti Niva Mili Pegu and 2 Ors. Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and 2 Ors.