Dipangki Haloi Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.

¶10

2:THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION

¶11

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (E) IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-781006 ASSAM

¶12

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT GHY-781003 ASSAM

¶13

5:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GHY-781022.

¶16

6:THE SECRETARY TO THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-781022. 7:THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GHY-781022. 8:THE UNDER SECRETARY ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION JAWAHAR NAGAR KHANAPARA GHY-781022. 9:THE STATE COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY STATE COUNCIL OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM GHY-781019 ASSAM 10:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 ASSA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H. BURAGOHAIN, MS A DEVI,MS. H BORAH,MR. C AGARWAL

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, SC, APSC

¶19

Page No.# 3/6

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶21

ORDER

¶22

03.03.2025

¶23

Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. P. Sarma, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 8.

¶24

The petitioner before this Court had offered her candidature for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the selection process conducted for the Department of Irrigation under the Government of Assam which process was undertaken through the APSC.

¶25

The petitioner had earlier approached the Court challenging the rejection of her candidature to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). This said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C)/6121/2022 which was disposed of by the order dated 19.09.2022 directing the respondents to undertake the exercise relating to the question of the equivalence of the Diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning by mutually accepted the conclusion as to whether both these diplomas are at par and can be accepted as qualification in terms of the advertisement dated 19.08.2020 as the required qualification for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). Thereafter the respondents passed the speaking order rejecting the case of the petitioner which came to be challenged by way of another writ petition WP(C) No. 56/2023. This writ petition also came to be disposed of by order dated 06.01.2023 directing the respondents to conduct the detailed exercise by perusing all relevant notification in the field as was contemplated by this Court in its order dated 06.01.2023 passed earlier in WP(C) No. 56/2023. Subsequently the respondents again rejected case of the

¶26

Page No.# 4/6

¶27

writ petition. This was undertaken by the decision dated 11.01.2023 which is advertently assailed in the present writ petition.

¶28

The basic grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has completed 3 years diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning from the duly recognized institution under the State Counsel for Technical Education (STCE). Whereas in the advertisement dated 19.08.2020 the qualification was shown to be 3 years diploma in Civil Engineering from any institute recognized by the AICTE. The consistent plea of the petitioner is that the 3 years diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning offered by the State Counsel for the Technical Education is valid diploma recognized by AICTE and is at par with Civil Engineering that may be offered by any institute recognized by the AICTE.

¶29

During the pendency of the writ petition several other writ petitions came to be considered by Coordinate-bench and one such writ petition came to be disposed of by a Coordinate-bench by order dated 24.06.2024 passed in WP(C)/5182/2022. By the said order a Coordinate-bench categorical finding that the diploma in Civil Engineering and Planning issued by the State Counsel for Technical Education will have to be considered as an equivalent to the degree in Civil Engineering of the purpose of recruitment of recourse of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department.

¶30

The writ petition was disposed of directing the APSC to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) as they had already submitted their application and had taken part in their recruitment process. The APSC was directed to declare the result of the petitioner and if the petitioners are found to have scored marks which are higher than the last selected candidates in their respective category the results of the petitioner shall be issued as a supplementary/revised result against

¶31

Page No.# 5/6

¶32

advertisement No.6/2020 dated 19.08.2020.

¶33

Subsequently, the review petition being Review Petition No.138/2024 was filed by the APSC seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2025 passed in WP(C)/5882/2022 and WP(C)/5182/2022. This review petition also came to be disposed of by order dated 12.02.2025. Taking into account the clarification furnished by the Irrigation Department to the queries put by the APSC, the review petition was disposed of with liberty to the Review Petitioner namely the APSC to take an appropriate decision as to whether they would act in accordance with the recommendations 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 the order by confining the exercise to the petitioners of the pending writ petition. The relevant paragraph of the order is extracted below:

¶34

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.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the directions of this Court passed in WP(C)/5182/2022 read with the order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Review Petition No.138/2024. This writ petition can also be closed with similar directions.

¶36

Such prayer made is not objected by the Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department as well as by the Standing Counsel, APSC.

¶37

The Coordinate-bench having arrived at the conclusion that diploma in Civil

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

Engineering and Planning issued by State Counsel for Technical Education will have to be considered as equivalent to the degree in Civil Engineering for the purpose of recruitment for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Irrigation Department having finality as no further appeal is preferred by the respondents, this Court is persuaded to accept this finding as the facts urged in the present writ petition are on similar grounds. The further directions contain in the Review Petition No.138/2024 dated 12.02.2025, taking into consideration the clarification issued by the Irrigation Department that the 72 vacant posts are available and there are post available in the reserved category for women. Order dated 12.02.2025 passed in the Review Petition, it is seen that suitable posts available for recruitment are 41 out of 290 recommended by the APSC and further 31 of those recommended did not join. Accordingly, this writ petition also stands disposed of.

¶40

This writ petition also stands disposed of giving liberty to the APSC to take appropriate decision as to whether they would proceed in terms of the recommendations made by the Irrigation Department and bring the process of recruitment vide advertisement No.06/2020 dated 19.08.2020 to conclusion within the period of 1 (one) month from the date of the order by confining the exercise to the petitioner of the present writ petition.

¶41

In the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

Interim order, if any, stands merged.

¶43

Pending I.A.s are if any also disposed of.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Dipangki Haloi v. the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipangki Haloi v. the State of Assam and 9 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanti Das Vs Kishan Agencies Private Limited and Anr.

Suresh Kumar Rai and Anr. Vs Bank of Baroda and Anr.

Esob Ali Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Anjuma Saikia Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Lachit Borah @ Lachit Bora Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Atul Timung Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.