Disposed

Biju Kumar Lahory and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 May 2025WP(C)/4916/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two former SPOs challenged mark allotment in the 2017 AISF Constable recruitment, alleging erroneous award of experience marks despite the respondents' admission that both were entitled to 10 marks. The Court directed respondent No.3 to re-verify and recalculate marks for petitioner No.2 and select him if he secured 47.5 marks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to re-verify and recalculate petitioner No.2's SPO experience marks within six weeks and select him if he secures 47.5 marks.

Biju Kumar Lahory and Anr. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010189442024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4916/2024

¶5

BIJU KUMAR LAHORY AND ANR S/O- LATE CHANDRA KANTA LAHORY, RESIDENT OF VILL- BHALUKDUNGA, P.S.- BARAMA, P.O.- MEDAGHAT, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM- 781355.

¶6

2: BINOY BORO S/O- LATE HAKHA RAM BORO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MADARBARI P.S.- TAMULPUR, P.O.- MAZDIA DIST.- BAKSA, ASSAM- 781367

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007.

¶11

3:CHAIRMAN

¶12

STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD MADHABDEVPUR

¶13

REHABARI, GUWAHATI- 781008.

¶14

4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BAKSA,MUSHALPUR, ASSAM

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DEKA,

¶16

Page No.# 2/8

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

¶18

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶19

ORDER

¶20

15.05.2025

¶21

Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and also head Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the State respondents.

¶22

2. Two petitioners, namely, Biju Kumar Lahory and Binoy Boro, approached this Court by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to re-verify the certificates of the petitioners and re-allot the requisite marks and if, on such allotment of marks the petitioners attain the cut off marks, then to appoint them as Constables in Assam Industrial Security Force, pursuant to the advertisement, dated 13.12.2017.

¶23

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

¶24

“The two petitioners were initially appointed as Home Guards in Baksa district and subsequently, as Special Police Officers (SPOs) in the year 2008, under Section 23 of the Assam Police Act, 2007. After their appointment, they have served as SPOs in Baksa district during the 2012 BTAD ethnic problem. Thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.12.2017, issued by the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam, Rehabari, for filling up of 145 nos. of post of Constables in Assam Industrial Security Force (AISF) from amongst the SPOs, who have served in districts of Dhubri and Baksa during 2012 ethnic problem, the petitioners have applied for the same.

¶25

Page No.# 3/8

¶26

The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities in the advertisement dated 13.12.2017 has indicated the breakup of the marks to be awarded for extra-curricular activities and special skills, which is maximum 40 marks. The relevant portion of the advertisement is extracted herein below:-

¶27

C. Break-up of the marks awarded for Extra-Curricular Activities and Special Skills which is of maximum 40 marks shall be as follows:-

¶28

Experience as Home Guards-

¶29

1) 1 year experience will earn 1 mark in each qualifying year. Those who have completed advanced training will be awarded 2 extra marks. Total marks will not exceed 10 marks.

¶30

2) Experience as SPO will earn 2 marks for each qualifying one year. It will not exceed 10 marks.

¶31

3) Computer knowledge

¶32

(6 months duration course – 2 Marks & 1 year or more duration courses – 5 Marks)

¶33

4) A) State Level Sport persons (Represented district in inter district competition or State Level Competition) = 02 marks.

¶34

B) National level sports persons who has participated in a National Sport Event as part of a State contingent recognized by the Indian Olympic Association = 05 marks.

¶35

5) Marks for additional educational qualifications.

¶36

Class 10 passed	-	40% or less 2 marks.
		60% or less 3 marks
		80% or less 4 marks
		More than 80% 5 marks
Class 12 passed	-	40% or less 6 marks
		60% or less 7 marks
		80% or less 8 marks
		More than 80% 9 marks
Degree	-	10 marks

¶37

The final result would be based on the marks obtained as follows:-

¶38

Page No.# 4/8

¶39

i. PET = 20 Marks ii. Written Test = 40 Marks iii. Marks awarded to Extra-Curricular Activities And Special Skills = 40 Marks

¶40

Total = 100 Marks

¶41

Further pleaded case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 was allotted 10 marks and the petitioner No.2 was allotted only 2 marks in the PET/PST result sheet in the category of experience as SPO, though both of them served as SPOs for the same period and the number of marks allotted to the petitioners are added up to 22 and 14 instead of 20 and 12, respectively and thereby denied them from their rightful appointment to the post of Constables GD in AISF. Their further pleaded case is that they belongs to the SC category and had the petitioners been allotted equal marks and did the right calculation, then both the petitioners would have surpass the cut off marks stipulated for the SC category i.e. 45 and because of the marks of the petitioner No.1 becomes 46 and petitioner No.2 becomes 49.50, respectively.

¶42

Further pleaded case of the petitioners is that some similarly situated unsuccessful candidates filed a number of writ petitions before this Court and in WP(C) No.3734/2024 vide order dated 10.05.2024, a coordinate bench of this Court was pleased to remand the matter back to the respondent authorities, directing the respondent authorities to re-verify the documents of the petitioners and to allot them with 2 marks, which was allotted to all the candidates of Kokrajhar district and because of the random allotment of marks by the respondent authorities, the petitioners could not get selection and therefore, they approached this Court by filing the present petition with the aforementioned relief.”

¶43

4. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the advertisement dated 13.12.2017, submits that the marks allotted for the experience as SPO is 10 marks and for each qualifying year of service the candidates will get 2

¶44

Page No.# 5/8

¶45

marks and the present petitioners served more than 5 years and as such, they are entitled to get 10 marks in the aforementioned segment. But, the respondent authorities have allotted 10 marks to the petitioner No.1, but only 2 marks to the petitioner No.2. Referring to page Nos.33 and 34 of the writ petition, Mr. Mazumdar submits that the petitioner No.1 Biju Kumar Lahary was allotted 32 marks out of 60 marks in PET and extra-curricular activities and the petitioner No.2 was allotted 28 marks out of 60 in PET and extra- curricular activities and the total marks obtained by the petitioner No.1 was 44 and the petitioner No.2 was 39.50 marks.

¶46

5. Taking this Court through the affidavit-in-opposition, specially through the paragraph No.8, Mr. Mazumdar submits that in the said paragraph the respondent authorities have reflected the marks allotted to the petitioners in the PET segment and the marks in Extra- Curricular Activities, wherein it was shown that the petitioner No.1 obtained 44 marks and the petitioner No.2 obtained 39.5 marks, as shown in Chart No.1:-

¶47

Chart-1

¶48

Sl. No.	Name	Marks i Running	n PET Jump	Total Marks in PET	Marks in Written	Computer	Mar C SPO Experience	ks Secu urricular Education Qualification	red in E Activitie H Certif Experience	xtra s G icate Advance Training	Total Marks in ECA	Total Marks (PET+Written+ECA)
1	BIJU KR LAHARY APSP171440	5	7	12	12	0	10	0	10	2	20	44
2	BINAY BORO APSP171449	7.5	8.5	16	11.5	0	2	0	10	2	12	39.5

¶49

6. Mr. Mazumdar further submits that and in the same paragraph in the Chart No.2, the respondent authorities states that both the candidates rendered service as SPOs/Home Guards from 09.08.2012 to 10.04.2018 for a period of 5 years 4 months and 9 days and as per record received from the Superintendent of Police, Baksa

¶50

Page No.# 6/8

¶51

Mashalpur, both the petitioners are entitled to get 10 marks, and the petitioner No.1 is awarded 10 marks and if 10 marks is awarded to the petitioner No.2, then the calculation would have been as shown in the Chart-2 as under:-

¶52

Chart-2

¶53

Sl. No.	Name	Marks i Running	n PET Jump	Total Marks in PET	Marks in Written	Computer	Mar C SPO Experience	ks Secu urricular Education Qualification	red in E Activiti HG Experience	xtra es HG Advance Training	Total Marks in ECA	Total Marks (PET+Written+ECA)
1	BIJU KR LAHARY APSP171440	5	7	12	12	0	10	0	10	2	20	44
2	BINAY BORO APSP171449	7.5	8.5	16	11.5	0	10	0	10	2	12	47.5

¶54

7. Mr. Mazumdar further submits that the cut-off mark for being selected in the ST category is 45. And referring to Annexure-10 of the affidavit-in-reply, Mr. Mazumdar submits that submits that one Jatin Rabha, who had secured 45.50 marks, got selection in the aforementioned selection process and as per Chart-2 of paragraph No.8 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the present petitioner No.2 ought to have been given 47.5 marks, he would have got selection in the said process. Further, referring to a letter at AnnexureK at page No.109 of the petition, Mr. Mazumdar submits that the said annexure is a letter, dated 13.11.2024, addressed to the Nodal Officer, State Level Police Recruitment Board, issued by the Commandant, 24th APBN, Charaimari, Baksa, wherein it is indicated that it may be due to human error or wrong entries made during final document verification by the detailed personnel for the task on 11.12.2021, and in view of the clear admission of error and the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition, Mr. Mazumdar contended to allow this petition granting similar relief to the petitioners in WP(C) No.3734/2022 (Bikash Bania & 5 Ors. v. State of Assam & 5 Ors.,) and batch, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated

¶55

Page No.# 7/8

¶56

10.05.2024, was pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider allotment of marks to the petitioner of the said petition.

¶57

8. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent authorities, referring to paragraph No.9 of the affidavit-in-opposition, submits that in the order dated 10.05.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the respondent authorities to award 2 marks against the certificate of the writ petitioner whose period of service either as Home Guard or SPO was not specified in the respective certificate and in the case of the present petitioners also, the period of service has not been specified and on such count, the award of 2 marks in the segment of experience is justified and as such, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

¶58

9. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and I find substance in the submission of Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶59

10. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that there is discrepancy in the allotment of marks in the segment of experience and this fact is clearly admitted by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition, especially in paragraph No.8. The relevant portion of the affidavit is produced herein below:-

¶60

“Considering the records, received from the Superintendent of Police, Baksa Mashalpur, vide Memo No.BSA/CB/78/2024/201 dated 13-11-2024, both candidates, namely Biju Kumar Lahary (APSP 171440) and Binoy Boro (APSP 171449), should have been awarded 10 marks, as they rendered more than 5 years of service as SPO/Home Guards. Hence, 10 marks for both candidates should be considered correct.”

¶61

11. It also appears that after award of the aforementioned marks, they have indicated in Chart-2 that the petitioner No.1 obtained 44 marks and the petitioner No.2 obtained 47.5 marks. While the cut off mark is of 45 for ST candidates, the petitioner No.2 being the ST candidate is entitled to get selection provided 10 marks is awarded to him in the segment of experience as SPO, like the petitioner No.1.

¶62

Page No.# 8/8

¶63

12. In view of the stand taken by the respondent authorities in the affidavit-inopposition, the submission of Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the respondent authorities left this Court unimpressed.

¶64

13. However, Mr. Mazumdar, with all fairness submits that the petitioner No.1 since secured only 44 marks even after award of 10 marks in the segment of experience as SPO, which below the cut-off mark of 45 in the ST category, he is automatically ousted from the competition. And since the petitioner No.2 ought to have been awarded 47.5 marks, which is above the cut-off marks of 45, he is entitled to get selection.

¶65

14. Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities specially respondent No.3, to re-verify the marks allotted to the petitioner No.2 in the segment of SPO experience and thereafter, to recalculate the total marks and if he secures 47.5 marks, as indicated in the Chart-2 of the affidavit-in-opposition, at paragraph No.8, he shall be selected for the post like Shri Jatin Rabha, a candidate who had secured 45.50 marks as per Annexure-10 of the affidavit-in-reply and got selection for the post.

¶66

15. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No.3 within a period of one week from today.

¶67

16. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs.

¶68

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶69

Comparing Assistant

Biju Kumar Lahory and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Kumar Lahory and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hussain Ahmed Mazumder Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Biju Devi and 2 Ors. Vs Narayan Konwar and Anr.

Kamal Uddin Ahmed and 16 Ors. Vs Ms. Mamata Hojai, Aes

Golajar Uddin Ahmed @ Raju and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Dilip Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Dayananda Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.