Dismissed¶40

Manash Pratim Bhagabati and 2 Ors. v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Jun 2026WP(C)/4344/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Foreigners Tribunals Assam recruitment; State Level Police Recruitment Board; advertisement dated 13-06-2019; select list published 19-09-2019; validity of select list one year; lapsed w.e.f. 18-09-2020; 200 new Foreigners Tribunals not created; NRC updating process; no vested right to appointment; mere placement in select list does not mandate appointment; representations unanswered; WP(C)/4344/2021; Gauhati High Court; N. Unni Krishnan Nair; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

In terms of the stipulations made in the advertisement, the select list published on 19-09-2019 had lost its validity after lapse of one year from its date of publication. ¶36

Manash Pratim Bhagabati and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities can be directed to appoint the petitioners in terms of their placement in the select list published pursuant to the selection held under the advertisement dated 13-06-2019. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

Mere placement in a select list does not mandate appointment; implementation of the select list involves various factors required to be considered by the employer, and the petitioners having urged no malafide and having alleged no implementation ignoring merit position, their claim does not mandate acceptance.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

In terms of the stipulations made in the advertisement, the select list published on 19-09-2019 had lost its validity after lapse of one year from its date of publication.

¶36

Key takeaways

Since the 200 contemplated Foreigners Tribunals were not created (the NRC updating process not having reached its logical conclusion), there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to effect appointment from the select list.ratio¶36
On account of the non-implementation of the select list, no right of the petitioners came to be infringed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C)/4344/2021, Gauhati High Court, Single Bench, N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.; order dated 09-06-2026) by three candidates shown as selected in a select list published on 19-09-2019 pursuant to an advertisement dated 13-06-2019 issued by the Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam for engagement on contractual basis (two years) in various posts in Foreigners Tribunals, seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them in terms of the select list. The recruitment was for 200 new Foreigners Tribunals contemplated in view of the NRC updating process; those Tribunals were never created as the NRC process had not reached its logical conclusion. Per the stipulation in the advertisement (relied on by the respondents), the select list was valid for one year from announcement of result and, having been published on 19-09-2019, lapsed w.e.f. 18-09-2020, before the petitioners approached the Court. Held: (i) the select list lost its validity one year after publication and, the Tribunals not having been set up, there was no occasion to effect appointments from it, so non-implementation infringed no right of the petitioners; (ii) mere placement in a select list does not mandate appointment, its implementation involving various factors for the employer to consider, and with no malafide or merit-order irregularity alleged, the claim did not mandate acceptance. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to cost.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010132902021

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4344/2021

¶6

MANASH PRATIM BHAGABATI AND 2 ORS S/O- LT. RANJIT BHAGABATI, R/O- VILL- GANDHIYA, P.O. GANDHIYA, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781304

¶7

2: PIKU KUMAR SARMA S/O- PRANAB SARMA R/O- CHANDMARI COLONY ASSAM TRIBUNE SILPUKHURI DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781003

¶8

3: LEENA BHAGABATI S/O- LT. RANJIT BHAGABATI R/O- VILL- GANDHIYA P.O. GANDHIYA DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 78130

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS

¶11

REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH EAST DIVISION, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶12

2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NORTH EAST DIVISION NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI- 110001

¶13

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶14

REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

DISPUR GHY-6

¶17

4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF ASSAM JANATABHAWAN DISPUR GHY-6 5:THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 6:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME AND POLITICAL DEPTT. GHY-6

¶18

7:THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (BORDER) ASSAM SRIMANTAPUR BHANGAGARH GH

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS P RAI, MR. U SARMA,MS. P K DEVI,MR H BEZBARUA

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. R K D CHOUDHURY(DY. SGI),GA, ASSAM

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 09-06-2026

¶25

Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel/ DSGI assisted by Ms. L. Devi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. U. Sarma, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7.

¶26

The petitioners in the present writ petition have sought for a direction upon the

¶27

respondent authority for appointing the petitioners in terms of their placement in the

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

select list as published, pursuant to the selection held in terms of the advertisement dated 13-06-2019.

¶30

The Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam had issued an advertisement dated 13-06-2019 inviting applications for engagement on contractual basis, for 02 (two) years, in Foreigners Tribunals under the Government of Assam, various posts were so advertised. The petitioners, being eligible had submitted their respective applications for the posts advertised, vide advertisement dated 13-06-2019 and it is projected that on conclusion of the selection process, the petitioners were selected against the posts for which they had submitted their respective applications. The select list is projected to have been published on 19-09-2019. The appointments not having effected in respect of the petitioners, herein, they had approached the respondent authorities by way of filing representations. A response not being received from the respondent authorities, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition, praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for implementing the select list prepared in the matter.

¶31

Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioners by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, submits that the new Foreigners Tribunals as contemplated, not being created, the select list as prepared in the matter, in all probability was not given effect to.

¶32

Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel/ DSGI appearing for the respondents submits that the new Tribunals for which, the process for recruitment was initiated vide advertisement dated 13-06-2019, not having seen the light of the day, i.e. they not having been created, there was no occasion for implementing the select list so prepared

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

in the matter. He submits that the advertisement itself had stipulated that the select list would remain valid for appointment, from the date of announcement of the result, for a period of 01 (one) year or till the date of next advertisement of the similar posts, whichever is earlier. He submits that the select list having been published on 19-09-2019, in terms of the stipulation, made in the advertisement itself, the validity of the select list lapsed w.e.f. 18-09-2020. The petitioners are found to have approached this Court after validity of the select list had lapsed in the matter.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶36

It is stated at the Bar that the recruitment, in question, was for establishments of 200 (two hundred) new Foreigners Tribunals in the State, in view of the NRC updating process underway at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, for ensuring smooth running of the Tribunals, that were being contemplated to be created, the advertisement dated 13-06-2019 for recruitment against the ministerial posts that would now be required for operationalization of the Foreigners Tribunals on their creation, came to be made. However, it is seen that the 200 (two hundred) Tribunals as contemplated were not created, in view of the fact that the NRC updating process had not reached its logical conclusion. Accordingly, the respondent authorities had not proceeded to implement the select list prepared in the matter in pursuance to the advertisement dated 13-06-2019. Further, this Court notices that the said select list having been published on 19-09-2019, in terms of the stipulations made in the advertisement, the said select list had lost its validity after lapse of one year from its date of publication. Accordingly, the Tribunals not

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

having been set up, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to effect appointment from the select list. This Court in the attending facts and circumstances as involved in the present proceeding holds that on account of non-implementation of the select list in question no right of the petitioners in the matter came to be infringed.

¶39

It is settled position of law that mere placement in the select list would not also mandate that such persons should also be appointed and the implementation of the select list would involve various factors which is required to be considered by the employer. The petitioners in the present writ petition having not urged any malafide against the employer and also not having alleged that the said select list was being implemented without considering the merit position of the candidates placed therein, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petition, would not mandate an acceptance.

¶40

Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same consequently stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Manash Pratim Bhagabati and 2 Ors. v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manash Pratim Bhagabati and 2 Ors. v. the Union of India and 6 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

Bukeson Bag Vs the Commissioner and Secreteary and 8 Ors.

Anil Kumar Deuri Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Jitu Hatimuria and Anr. Vs Ashutosh Agnihotri, IAS and 5 Ors.

Pranab Jyoti Borboruah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mazibar Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

MD Intaz Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.