Bhrigu Thakuria Vs the State of Assam and 24 Ors.

2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD.ABDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY.-01 REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR CMD APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY.-01. 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER DISTRIBUTION

¶11

APDCL LAR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY.-01. 4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HQ

¶12

APDCL LAR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR

¶13

Page No.# 2/11

¶14

GHY.-01. 5:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER HR APDCL LAR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY.-01. 6:THE D.G.M HR APDCL LAR BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY.

¶15

7:THE GEN. MANAGER

¶16

GUWAHATI ZONE APDCL LAZ SIXMILE GHY.

¶17

8:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

¶18

RANGIA ELECTRICAL CIRCLE APDCL. 9:THE ASSTT. GEN. MANAGER RANGIA ELECTRICAL DIVISION APDCL LAR RANGIA.

¶19

10:MD. SATTAR ALI WORKING AS SAHAYAK C/O. MANAGER BAIHATA CHARIALI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL PIN-781211 A RESIDENT OF VILL. PINGLESWAR P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 11:JITU DEKA S/O. SRI TARANI DEKA

¶20

Page No.# 3/11

¶21

WORKING AS SAHAYAK C/O MANAGER BAIHATA CHARIALI ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION APDCL PIN-781211 A RESIDENT OF VILL. BEZERAA P.O. BEZERA P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 12:MUKUT ALI S/O. MD. NAUSAD ALI WORKING AS SAHAYAK C/O. MANAGER RANGIA ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION-1 APDCL LAR PIN-781354 R/O. VILL. KASARI SOLMARI P.O. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354. 13:RAMEN KALITA S/O. LT. ATUL CH. KALITA WORKING AS SAHAYAK C/O. MANAGER RANGIA ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION-2 APDCL LAR P.O. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 A R/O. VILL. TULSIBARI P.O. TULSIBARI P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶22

14:MANORANJAN DEKA

¶23

S/O. HITESH DEKA ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE C/O. MANAGER RANGIA ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION-1 APDCL LAR

¶24

Page No.# 4/11

¶25

P.O. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 A R/O. VILL. NAKUL NO.1 P.O. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶26

15:RUBUL DAS

¶27

S/O. RAMCHARAN DAS WORKING AS SAHAYAK C/O. ASSTT. GEN. MANAGER ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. RANGIA T and C DIVISION P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781354 A R/O. VILL. BONGAON P.O. RANGIA P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM.

¶28

16:SRI KUSHAL BORO

¶29

S/O. PARASHU RAM BORO WORKING AS SAHAYAK C/O. MANAGER RANGIA ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION-1 APDCL LAR PIN-781354 A R/O. VILL. DEULKUCHI P.O. RANGIA DIST. BAKSA ASSAM. 17:SRI SANJOY BARMAN S/O. SRI SADANANDA BARMAN PONAR KUNIA P.O. BORAJOL GHOGRAPAR DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781369 WORKING AS SAHAYAK

¶30

Page No.# 5/11

¶31

NALBARI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION-1 APDCL NALBARI ASSAM. 18:MD. MIRJUL HUSSAIN S/O. MD. JIAR ALI VILL. MUKALMUA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781126. 19:MD. JEHRUL ISLAM S/O. LATE BAHARUL ISLAM SAPKATA MUKALMUA DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781126 WORKING AS SAHAYAK NALBARI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION-1 APDCL ASSAM. 20:SRI BIREN RAJBONGSHI S/O. CHANDRA RAJBONGSHI VILL. BALIKARIA KHARJARA GOPALBAZAR NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781341 WORKING AS SAHAYAK NALBARI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION-1 APDCL ASSAM. 21:SRI PRATAP BARMAN S/O. LATE JARUN BARMAN NAMATI HATI NAMATI NALBARI ASSAM PIN781355 WORKING AS SAHAYAK NALBARI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION-1 APDCL ASSAM.

¶32

Page No.# 6/11

¶33

22:SRI MUKUT RAJBONGSHI S/O. LOHIT RAJBONGSHI JUGURKUCHI SRIPUR NALBARI P.O. KHATIKUCHI GHOGRAPAR NALBARI PIN-781369 WORKING AS SAHAYAK NALBARI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION-2 APDCL ASSAM. 23:SRI KUMUD DAS S/O. SRI THANESWAR DAS AGDALA BAIHATA CHARIALI KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM PIN-781381. 24:SRI TAPAN KUMAR DAS S/O. LATE PROBODH CH. DAS BAIHATA KOKERIA P.S. KAMALPUR KAMRUP (RURAL) ASSAM PIN-781381. 25:SRI NIREN CHANDRA DEKA S/O. LATE GOLAK CH. DEKA KENDUKUCHI BARKHANAJAN NALBARI PIN-781337 WORKING AS SAHAYAK NALBARI ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION-2 APDCL ASSAM

¶34

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R J SARMA, MR.S BIKASH

¶35

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. I CHOUDHURY, M N ALAM (R-22, R-25),B N BHUYAN (R22, R-25),R L CHUTIA (R-22, R-25),MR. K GOSWAMI, GA, ASSAM (R-1),SC, APDCL

¶36

Page No.# 7/11

¶37

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶38

ORDER

¶39

03.09.2025

¶40

Heard Mr. S. Bikash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Kalita, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. S. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2-9. None appears for the rest of the respondents.

¶41

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25; and also to issue direction to the respondent authorities to cancel and declare the Experience Certificates of the aforementioned respondents, who were illegally appointed in view of the report submitted by the Chief Vigilance Officer, ADPCL; and also to set aside and quash the impugned Final Selection List, for appointment to the post of Sahayaks, in the Rangia Electrical Circle, APDCL (LAR), Rangia; and also to appoint the petitioner as Sahayak.

¶42

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition are briefly stated as under:-

¶43

“The respondent authorities, being respondent Nos. 1-9, published an advertisement in the Newspaper on 09.04.2013, inviting applications in the prescribed format; for filling up of 1064 posts of Sahayaks under APDCL, wherein 28 Nos. of posts were earmarked for the Rangia Electrical Circle, APDCL (LAR). In the said advertisement, two eligibility categories, being Category-A and Category-B were prescribed, under which, the candidates were allowed to file their applications for the said posts. Under Category-A, the candidates having ITI certificates were eligible and under Category-B, the temporary workers engaged in any power utility, for performing the job of Sahayak continuously for more than 3 (three) years, were eligible to apply for the said vacant posts. The petitioner, being an ITI passed candidate, applied under the said Category-

¶44

Page No.# 8/11

¶45

A post. Though, vide Office Order No. 136, dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure-3), a total No. of 28 candidates, who had applied under the said “Category-B”, including the private respondents; were appointed against the vacant posts earmarked for Rangia Electrical Circle, APDCL (LAR). Then, one Satyendra Sarma had filed one R.T.I. application on 12.12.2014, in the Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Rangia Electrical Circle, seeking certain information in relation to the respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, so that documentary evidence regarding their work-experience, required to satisfy the eligibility criteria, could be obtained, and the reply to the said RTI application indicates that respective experience certificates of the said respondents did not satisfy the said eligibility criteria. But, in spite of the same, the said respondents were selected for the said vacant posts.

¶46

It has also come to the notice that the respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, in their respective experience certificates, were declared as Daily Wage Sahayaks; even though, no documentary evidence, such as their wage payment records, the dates of their initial engagement as Sahayaks, etc. were furnished to the said RTI applicant. Instead, vide Annexure-6, the concerned respondent authority (respondent No. 9) has declared the said respondents as honorary workers, having no record of their engagement. As the said respondents were already declared as daily wage workers in their respective Experience Certificates, later on, justifying their appointment as honorary workers is un-sustainable and bad in law.

¶47

Thereafter, an independent enquiry was made by the said Chief Vigilance Officer, APDCL, to look into the irregularities in appointment of the Sahayaks, and on perusal of the said Enquiry Report, on the said irregularities, it appears that the appointment of respondent Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are also bad and illegal.”

¶48

4. The respondent authorities have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, they had denied the statements and averments made in this petition.

¶49

5. Mr. Bikash, learned counsel for the petitioner, in respect of the alleged

¶50

Page No.# 9/11

¶51

irregularities being committed in the selection and appointment of Sahayaks, submits that the Chief Vigilance Officer, APDCL, has also made one independent enquiry and the said enquiry report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, APDCL, indicates that appointment of the respondent Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25 are bad and illegal; and the reply to the RTI application dated 12.12.2014, also indicates that the Experience Certificate filed by the respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 did not satisfy the eligibility criteria and in spite of the same, they were selected for the said vacant posts.

¶52

5.1 Mr. Bikash also submits that, it has also come to the notice that in their respective Experience Certificates, the respondent Nos. 10, 11, 12 & 13 were declared as Daily Wage Sahayak, and no documentary evidence, such as their wage payment records, the dates of their initial engagement as Sahayaks, etc., were furnished to the said RTI applicant; and under such circumstances, Mr. Bikash submits that this petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to take appropriate action, in the light of the enquiry made by the Chief Vigilance Officer, APDCL, dated 30.12.2015 (Annexure-19).

¶53

6. Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2-9 submits that he has no objection in the event of disposing of this petition, by issuing such a direction to the respondent authorities to take follow up action, in view of the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, APDCL.

¶54

7. Mr. Sarma has also referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 308/2021 (Samidur Rahman Vs. The State of Assam & 11 Ors.) , wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has directed the respondent APDCL to conduct verification exercise of all persons who were appointed to the posts of Sahayak, and if it is found that any of them had submitted his/her requisite/essential certificates/ documents after the last date of submission of application or the date fixed by the authorities concerned or did not submit such certificate, such persons

¶55

Page No.# 10/11

¶56

may be identified and their services will be liable to be terminated; however, only after giving a notice to them, and after completing the aforementioned exercise of termination of the services of such ineligible candidates by giving due notice to them, the vacant posts shall be filled up from amongst the remaining other candidates, as per the merit and if any of the writ appellants come within that zone of meritorious candidates, they certainly shall be considered, as per merit to the said vacant posts on termination of service, as mentioned above. Mr. Sharma also submits that the present case is also squarely covered by the aforementioned decision and as such, similar direction can be issued.

¶57

8. Having heard the submissions, so advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, dated 30.12.2015 (Annexure-19), and the RTI reply, dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-5).

¶58

9. The report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, dated 30.12.2015, indicates that the authority has recommended and selected 28 nos. of ‘Departmental Trainee Sahayak’ and posted them in different Sub-Divisions, under Rangia Electrical Circle; and subsequently, the said deprived candidates lodged a complaint against 15 Nos. of selected Sahayaks, who were illegally appointed, and thereafter, the Vigilance team scrutinized the relevant record and recorded the gist of their statements, with remarks in the enquiry report; and admittedly, no action was taken upon the said enquiry report.

¶59

10. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to take follow up action, upon the enquiry report submitted by the Chief Vigilance Officer, APDCL, on 30.12.2015 (Annexure-19), by following the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 308/2021 ( Samidur Rahman Vs. The State of Assam & 11 Others ). And, the said exercise has to be carried out within a period of 3 (three)

¶60

Page No.# 11/11

¶61

months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶62

11. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶63

12. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of the order and place the same before the respondent authorities, within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today.

¶64

JUDGE

¶65

Comparing Assistant

Bhrigu Thakuria v. the State of Assam and 24 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhrigu Thakuria v. the State of Assam and 24 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golapjan Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Anu Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Baharul Islam Vs Bhabesh Deka and Anr.

Rabin Dey Vs Lavita Das

Gunu Chetia Hati Boruah Vs the Govt. of Assam and 4 Ors.

Pradip Das and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.