Dismissed¶30

Monirul Islam v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Jun 2025WP(C)/1615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/1615/2024; Monirul Islam v. State of Assam & 2 Ors; Justice Devashis Baruah; order dated 12.06.2025; dismissed; recruitment of Peon; District and Sessions Judge, South Salmara-Mankachar; Select List dated 01.02.2024; women reservation quota excess of 30%; non-joinder/non-impleadment of selected women candidates as necessary parties; resignation of selected candidates; exhaustion of select list upon joining; wait list Sl. No.2; vacancies from resignation to be filled by due process; refusal of mandamus; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

On the ground alone that the petitioner did not implead the three selected women candidates whose selection to the unreserved posts of Peon was assailed, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. ¶26

Monirul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Select List dated 01.02.2024 for the posts of Peon was bad because the reservation of women exceeded the 30% quota. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

On the ground alone that the petitioner did not implead the three selected women candidates whose selection to the unreserved posts of Peon was assailed, the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Out of the three selected women candidates, two resigned in the meantime; therefore the Select List having one woman candidate against the five unreserved posts of Peon cannot be said to be bad as being violative of the women quota.

¶27

Key takeaways

As the selected candidates had already joined, the Select List stood exhausted for the posts of Peon; the vacancies created by the subsequent resignations had to be filled by following due process, and consequently no mandamus arose directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for appointment against those vacant posts.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under WP(C)/1615/2024 before the Gauhati High Court (Justice Devashis Baruah, order dated 12.06.2025) challenging the Select List dated 01.02.2024 for appointment to posts of Peon in the Office of the District and Sessions Judge, South Salmara-Mankachar, on the ground that women reservation exceeded the 30% quota, and seeking a direction to recommend the petitioner for the post of Peon. Held, dismissing the petition: (i) the petitioner did not implead the three selected women candidates whose selection was challenged, and on this ground alone the petition deserved dismissal; (ii) since two of the three selected women candidates had resigned, the Select List showing one woman candidate against five unreserved posts of Peon did not violate the women quota; and (iii) the Select List stood exhausted once the selected candidates had joined, vacancies arising from subsequent resignations were required to be filled by due process, and no mandamus lay to consider the wait-listed petitioner (at Sl. No.2) against such vacancies.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010046102024

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1615/2024

¶6

MONIRUL ISLAM

¶7

S/O- ABDUR HALIM SHEIKH, R/O- VILL.- PIPULBARI PART-I, P.O. KALIPANI, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REMEMBRANCER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶11

2:CHAIRMAN OF SELECTION COMMITTEE-CUM- DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

¶12

SOUTH SALMARA-MANKACHAR-783127.

¶13

3:SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR RECRUITMENT OF PEON AND CHOWKIDAR

¶14

IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR

¶15

For the petitioner (s) : Mr. S. Das, Advocate

¶16

For the respondent (s) : Mr. T. R. Gogoi, Advocate

¶17

Mr. A. Baruah, Advocate

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R

¶20

12.06.2025

¶21

Heard Mr. S. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

¶22

of the petitioner. Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appears on

¶23

Page No.# 2/3

¶24

behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶25

The petitioner herein has challenged the Select List dated 01.02.2024 in so far as the appointments made to the posts of Peon in the Office of the respondent No.2 on the ground that while making the said Select List, the reservation of women has been more than 30%. The petitioner also seeks for a direction upon the Competent Authority to recommend the name of the petitioner to the post of the Peon in the Office of the respondent No.2.

¶26

It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner herein has assailed the selection of three candidates to the unreserved posts of the Peon on the ground that there has been in excess of the women quota of 30%, but the petitioner did not care to implead the said selected women candidates. On this ground alone, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

Be that as it may, it is relevant to take note of that out of the three women candidates who were selected to the posts of Peon, two of them have resigned in the meantime. Under such circumstances, the Select List so made having one woman candidate as against the five posts of Peon unreserved, cannot be said to be bad as being violated of the women quota.

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as two women candidates have resigned, the said posts be filled up from the wait listed candidates wherein the petitioner is at Sl. No.2. In the opinion of this Court, as in the Select List so prepared, the candidates who were selected having already joined, the Select List stood exhausted in so far as the posts of the Peon is concerned. The subsequent resignation leads to creation of vacancies to the posts of Peon which in the opinion of this Court has to be filled up by following the due process. Under such circumstances, the question of issuance of a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner to be appointed against the vacant posts which have arisen on account of the resignation of the persons who had joined and resigned does not arise.

¶30

Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed.

¶31

Comparing Assistant

¶32

JUDGE

Monirul Islam v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monirul Islam v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sunita Das and 5 Ors.

Md. Rantu Ali Vs Md. Sayed Ali and 4 Ors.

Smt. Jaylaxmi Paul @ Diya Paul Vs Jiban Paul

Anju Prasad Vs the Gauhati High Court and 3 Ors.

Anju Prasad Vs the Gauhati High Court

Smti Hage Tungka Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.