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

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010233512017

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:12403

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/6282/2017

¶6

PRADIP DAS and 2 ORS.

¶7

AGED ABOUT- 39 YEARS S/O LT. BIHU RAM DAS R/O VILL- GURKUCHI P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP

¶8

ASSAM

¶9

2: SRI SATYENDRA SARMA

¶10

AGED ABOUT- 34 YEARS S/O ABONI SARMA R/O KACHARI SOLMARI P.O. KACHARI SOLMARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM

¶11

3: SRI BHRIGU THAKURIA AGED AOBUT 36 YEARS S/O JITENDRA THAKURIA R/O PACHIM NAOKATA P.O. NAOKATA P.S. GORESWAR DIST. BAKSA ASSAM VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS.

¶13

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM POWER DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶14

2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI -01.

¶15

3:THE CHAIRMAN

¶16

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO.LTD. APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI -01.

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶19

APDCL BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI -01.

¶20

-----------Advocate for : MR.S BIKASH Advocate for : SC APDCL appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM and 3 ORS.

¶21

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶22

ORDER

¶23

0 3.09.2025

¶24

Heard Mr. S. Bikash, learned counsel for the petitioners 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. 2-4.

¶25

2. Mr. Bikash, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to an advertisement, published in the newspaper, dated 09.04.2013, by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), for filling up of 1064 posts of Sahayaks, under APDCL and out of those 1064 posts, 28 Nos. of posts were earmarked for Rangia Electrical Circle, and in the said selection process, the petitioners have participated; and in the year 2014, the merit list of the Trainee Sahayak, under the Rangia Electrical Circle was finalized. And the final selection list, of total 28 Nos. of candidates, was published for Rangia Electrical Circle in the month of February 2014. Thereafter, vide Office Order No. 136, dated 04.03.2014, 28 Nos. of selected candidates were appointed as Sahayaks in various Electrical Sub-Divisions, under the Rangia Electrical Circle of APDCL.

¶26

2.1 Mr. Bikash also submits that thereafter, some documents and Office orders were obtained by filing RTI application, in respect of the aforesaid recruitment process and the said documents indicate that though only 28 Nos. of posts were earmarked for the

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

Rangia Electrical Circle, several subsequent appointment of Sahayaks had been made in various Electrical Sub-Divisions under the Rangia Electrical Circle, by selecting candidates from the same merit list; even after the expiry of validity of the same and without compliance of the procedure prescribed by the existing guidelines with regard to selection of Sahayak, and since the said appointments were made after expiry of the validity of the merit list, it violates the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

2.2 Mr. Bikash has also drew the attention of this Court to the order dated 04.03.2014, regarding the appointment of 28 Nos. of candidates, enclosed as ‘Annexure-7 series’ to this petition; who were appointed after expiry of the validity of the selection list. Further, referring to the Office Memorandum dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure-11, at page No. 65 to this petition); Mr. Bikash submits that the Merit List was supposed to remain valid for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of approval of the Chairman and Managing Director and in the instant case, there is no record of extension of the select list; and as such, the appointment of candidates after the expiry of the select list is illegal and arbitrary; and since the petitioners have already filed one representation on 24.07.2017, addressing the Chairman, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), Bijulee Bhawan, Guwahati-01; this writ petition may be disposed of, by directing the Chairman of APDCL to dispose of the said representation, dated 24.07.2017, by a speaking order, in a time bound manner.

¶30

3. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2-4, submits that he has no objection in the event of disposing of this petition by directing the Chairman, APDCL to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioners.

¶31

4. Having heard the submissions of the 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 made by Mr. Bikash, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶32

5. The Office Memorandum dated 02.04.2013, indicates that the merit list shall

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

remain valid for a period of 1 (one) year from the date of approval by the Chairman and Managing Director, APDCL. It also appears that the posts of Sahayak earmarked for Rangia was 28 and 28 Nos. of candidates were appointed vide order dated 04.03.2014. Further, it appears that after the appointment of the said 28 Nos. of candidates, some more candidates were appointed and this fact is apparent from the page Nos. 60, 62 and 63 of this petition; and the candidates, whose name appeared in page Nos. 60, 62 and 63 of this petition, were appointed after the expiry of the said select list.

¶35

6. However, without entering into the merit of the contention of the parties; in view of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, and in view of the representation dated 24.07.2017, being filed by the present petitioners and being unattended till date by the respondent No. 3; this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by directing the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Chairman, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL), Bijulee Bhawan, Guwahati-01, to dispose of the said representation of the petitioners by a speaking order; after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. And, said exercise has to be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶36

7. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No. 3, within a period of 3 (three) weeks.

¶37

8. In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

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.

Bhrigu Thakuria Vs the State of Assam and 24 Ors.