Shri Prashank Kumar v. the Union of India and Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Feb 2026I.A.(Civil)/3711/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment; necessary parties; writ petition WP(C) No. 8082/2022; I.A.(Civil)/3711/2025; OBC-NCL candidate availing age relaxation can compete for general category/unreserved post; reserve category appointment against general category post; Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U); IOCL Guwahati Refinery recruitment; advertisement dated 25.09.2021; applicant 79 marks vs general candidates 72 marks; selection and appointment under challenge; respondent Nos. 7 & 8 impleaded; Kardak Ete, J.; order dated 05.02.2026; Gauhati High Court.

What did the court decide?

Shri Jintu Deka and Shri Mrinal Deka allowed to be impleaded as respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in WP(C) No. 8082/2022; the interlocutory application stands disposed of. ¶¶43

Shri Prashank Kumar Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Shri Jintu Deka and Shri Mrinal Deka allowed to be impleaded as respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in WP(C) No. 8082/2022; the interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether Shri Jintu Deka and Shri Mrinal Deka, the selected and appointed general category candidates, are necessary parties who ought to be impleaded as respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in WP(C) No. 8082/2022. +1 more

¶¶35

Court's answer

Shri Jintu Deka and Shri Mrinal Deka, having been selected and appointed pursuant to the selection process under challenge in the connected writ petition, are necessary parties for proper adjudication thereof, and were allowed to be impleaded as respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in WP(C) No. 8082/2022.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

A reserve category candidate who has availed age relaxation is not thereby barred from competing for a post under the general category; as stated by the Court, it is settled that reserve category candidates are always allowed to compete with the general category and, prima facie, can be appointed against a post under the general category, since the general category post is not exclusively reserved for general category candidates.

¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Kardak Ete, J.), order dated 05.02.2026 in I.A.(Civil)/3711/2025 in WP(C) No. 8082/2022 — Impleadment of necessary parties; reservation/age relaxation. The Court allowed an application seeking impleadment of Shri Jintu Deka and Shri Mrinal Deka, the selected general category candidates, as respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in the connected writ petition challenging the selection and appointment to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U) at Guwahati Refinery, IOCL (Refineries Division), pursuant to advertisement dated 25.09.2021. Holding (i): upon perusal of the advertisement's age limit and relaxation provisions, it cannot be said that a reserve category candidate who availed age relaxation is barred from competing for a post under the general category, it being settled that reserve category candidates are always allowed to compete with the general category, and the general category post is not exclusively reserved for general category candidates. Holding (ii): since the two appointees were selected and appointed under the very selection process under challenge, and the applicant (OBC-NCL, 79 marks) had prima facie scored higher marks than them (general category, 72 marks), they were necessary parties for proper adjudication and were impleaded. Interlocutory application allowed and disposed of.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010042242023

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3711/2025

¶6

SHRI PRASHANK KUMAR

¶7

SON OF SHRI KRISHNA GOPAL PAL RESIDENT OF 618 NEW ASHOK NAGAR GOOBA GARDEN KALYANPUR KANPUR NAGAR NEAR SUKHDATA HOSPITAL UTTAR PRADESH 208017

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110001.

¶10

2:THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN 2079/3 JB TITO MARG SADIQ NAGAR NEW DELHI

¶12

3:THE DIRECTOR REFINERY DIVISION

¶13

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD REFINERIES DIVISION SCOPE COMPLEX CORE-2

¶14

7 INSTITUTIONAL AREA LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI

¶15

4:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD HUMAN RESOURCES REGINERIES DIVISION GUWAHATI REFINERY NOONMATI GUWAHATI

¶16

5:THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD SCOPE COMPLEX CORE-2 7 INSTITUTIONAL AREA LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI

¶17

6:SHRI PRANAB PATHAK

¶18

JUNIOR ENGINEERING ASSISTANT - IV P AND U BOILER

¶19

Page No.# 2/5

¶20

GUWAHATI REFINERY P AND U DEPARTMENT

¶21

7:SHRI JINTU DEKA

¶22

JUNIOR ENGINEERING ASSISTNAT - IV P AND U BOILER GUWAHATI REFINERY P AND U DEPARTMENT

¶23

8:SHRI MRINAL DEKA

¶24

JUNIOR ENGINEERING ASSISTANT - IV P AND U BOILER GUWAHATI REFINERY P AND U DEPARTMENT

¶25

-----------Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : SC I O C appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

¶26

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Date : 05.02.2026

¶29

Heard Mr. R. M. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant/ writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party/Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

¶30

2. This is an application seeking impleadment of Shri Jintu Deka and Shri Mrinal Deka as respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in WP(C) No. 8082/2022.

¶31

3. The applicant/petitioner has filed the connected writ petition challenging the selection and appointment to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U) at Guwahati Refinery pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.09.2021, whereby the applications were invited for filling up of post of, inter alia, Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U) in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Refineries Division). The applicant was not selected despite securing total of 79

¶32

Page No.# 3/5

¶33

marks under OBC-NCL category. The above persons sought to be impleaded, namely, Shri Jintu Deka and Shri Mrinal Deka, were general candidates who have secured total 72 marks, respectively. However, they have been selected and appointed as Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U).

¶34

4. According to the applicant, since he has secured higher marks than the general candidates who have been selected and appointed, he ought to have been selected and appointed in the said post.

¶35

5. Mr. R. M. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that since the selection process itself is under challenge in the connected writ petition, including the selection and appointment of above-named 2 (two) persons pursuant to the said advertisement, they are required to be impleaded being the necessary parties for proper adjudication of the connected writ petition. Therefore, he submits that the applicant may be allowed to implead both Shri Jintu Deka and Shri Mrinal Deka as respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in the connected WP(C) No. 8082/2022.

¶36

6. Ms. T. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party/IOC, while referring to the advertisement, particularly the provisions relating to age limit and relaxation for candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC(NCL)/PwBD/ExSM, submits that the applicant is an OBC candidate who has availed age relaxation of 3 (three) years, whereas the maximum age prescribed for general category candidates is 26 years. Since the applicant/petitioner has availed the age relaxation of 3 (three) years, he would not be entitled to claim for the post under general category. Therefore, even if the above 2 (two) persons are impleaded, the applicant would not be entitled to claim for the post for which the said 2 (two) persons

¶37

Page No.# 4/5

¶38

have been selected and appointed and as such, the above 2 (two) persons are not the necessary parties to be impleaded in the connected writ petition.

¶39

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

¶40

8. Upon perusal of the advertisement and on its careful consideration, particularly with regard to age limit and relaxation, it cannot be said that once the reserve category candidate availed the age relaxation, he would be barred from competing the post under general category as it is settled that the reserve category candidates would always be allowed to compete with the general category. The applicant having been scored more marks than the general category candidates, prima facie, in view of the settled position of law, the reserve category can be appointed in a post under general category as it is not that the post under the general category is treated to be reserved for general category candidates and in fact is not the reserve post and it is only the reserve post which is exclusively for the reserve category.

¶41

9. Having considered that the applicant has challenged the selection process which has been undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.09.2021 for filling up of various post including the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (P & U), pursuant to which the above 2 (two) persons have been appointed in the said post, and considering that the applicant, although a reserve category candidate, appears to have scored higher marks than the above 2 (two) persons, who are the general candidates, I am of the considered view that the above 2 (two) persons having been selected and appointed in the said post pursuant to the selection process, which is under challenge, they would be the

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

necessary parties for proper adjudication of the connected writ petition. Thus, I deem it appropriate to allow this interlocutory application.

¶44

10. Accordingly, the above 2 (two) persons, namely, Shri Jintu Deka and Shri Mrinal Deka, are allowed to be impleaded as respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in the connected writ petition, being in WP(C) No. 8082/2022.

¶45

11. The interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Shri Prashank Kumar v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prashank Kumar v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

No Jc 104154 Naib Subedar Gd General Duty Ramraj Prasad Majhi Vs the Union of India

3800392 Hav Gd Bhushan Kumar Vs Union of India

Ct Fitter Mufiz Uddin Vs Shri Gp Singh, IPS

Jahirul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Binapani Rajkhowa Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Anowarul Haque Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.