Dismissed¶14

Sunil Khanikar and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jun 2026WP(C)/5274/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Constable (Armed Branch) recruitment, Assam Police; advertisement dated 08.02.2010, Golaghat district; select list published 27.11.2010 with one-year validity; writ petition WP(C)/5274/2020 instituted 27.11.2020 held not maintainable for delay; petitioners fence-sitters; selected candidates not arrayed as respondents; reliance on WP(C) No. 2725/2010 (judgment and order dated 22.02.2019) displaced by Division Bench order dated 12.06.2024 allowing WA No. 50/2022; WA No. 323/2021; writ petition dismissed, no order as to cost; neutral citation 2026:GAU-AS:8130; Gauhati High Court; N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition assailing the select list dated 27.11.2010, instituted on 27.11.2020 only after the select list's one-year validity had lapsed, is not maintainable on account of the delay. ¶11

Sunil Khanikar and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition instituted on 27.11.2020 challenging the select list published on 27.11.2010 is maintainable, given that the select list lost validity one year after publication and the selected candidates were not arrayed as respondents. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The writ petition assailing the select list dated 27.11.2010, instituted on 27.11.2020 only after the select list's one-year validity had lapsed, is not maintainable on account of the delay.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

A further aspect noticed against the petitioners is that they did not array any of the selected candidates as party respondents in the proceedings.

¶11

Key takeaways

The petitioners brought no material on record showing that they had acquired more marks than the selected candidates in the selection process and are found to be fence-sitters.ratio¶13
On account of the delay in instituting the writ petition assailing the select list dated 27.11.2010, the claim made by the petitioners would not mandate acceptance by this Court.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.), order dated 08/06/2026 in WP(C)/5274/2020 — Sunil Khanikar & 3 Ors. v. The State of Assam & 6 Ors. Applicants who completed all stages of selection to the post of Constable (Armed Branch), advertised vide advertisement dated 08.02.2010 for Golaghat district, challenged the select list published on 27.11.2010 only by writ petition instituted on 27.11.2020 — after the select list's one-year validity had lapsed and after the Co-ordinate Bench's judgment and order dated 22.02.2019 in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 (directing appointment of similarly situated Sivasagar-district candidates who had scored above the cut-off, against next available vacancies) had been interfered with by the Division Bench allowing the State's WA No. 50/2022 on 12.06.2024. Held: (i) the writ petition, filed after expiry of the select list's validity and without arraying the selected candidates, is not maintainable on account of delay; (ii) the petitioners produced no material showing marks above the selected candidates and are fence-sitters, so their claim would not mandate acceptance. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to cost.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010174712020

2026:GAU-AS:8130

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5274/2020

¶6

SUNIL KHANIKAR AND 3 ORS.

¶7

S/O SRI SATYA KHANIKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TELEHUA GAON, PO AND PS DERGAON, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BORBARUAH, PO JAMIRAH, PS BORBARAUH, DIST DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

¶8

2: SRI RANJIT PHUKAN S/O SRI NIPUL CH. PHUKAN

¶9

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DERGAON GELEHUA PO AND PS DERGAON DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM 785614

¶10

3: SRI MONOJ BORA

¶11

S/O SRI BIREN BORA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BONGAL GAON PO AND PS DERGAON DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM

¶12

4: SRI JITUPON HAZARIKA S/O NOREN HAZARIKA

¶13

RESIDENT OF DERGAON KAMARGAON PO AND PS DERGAON DIST GOLAGHAT ASSA

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 6

¶19

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(ADMIN) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 4:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF POLICE (TAP) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 5:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 6:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GOLAGHAT. ASSAM 7:THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(HQ) GOLAGHAT. ASSA

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, MS D DUTTA

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶24

ORDER

¶25

08/06/2026

¶26

Heard Mr. P J Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for all the respondents.

¶27

Page No.# 3/5

¶28

2. The petitioners by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to the select list published on 27.11.2010, with regard to recruitment against vacant posts of Constable as advertised, vide advertisement dated 08.02.2010, more specifically, for the district of Golaghat.

¶29

3. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 08.02.2010, the petitioners had submitted their respective applications for recruitment against the posts of Constable (Armed Branch), as notified for the district of Golaghat.

¶30

4. It is to be noted that the advertisement had required submission of such application by the candidates against the posts reserved for the district to which they belonged.

¶31

5. The petitioners further contend that they have completed all the stages of the selection process. However, on the select list being published on 27.11.2010, the names of the petitioners did not find mention, therein.

¶32

6. It is seen that after the publication of the said select list, which has a validity of a year, the petitioners are not found to have assailed the same before this Court, by approaching this Court and/or approaching the respondent authorities.

¶33

7. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that persons similarly situated like the petitioners belonging to Sivasagar district, had approached this Court alleging similar allegations as alleged by the petitioners in the present proceedings.

¶34

8. The said writ petition was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and vide order dated 22.02.2019, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, having

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

found that the petitioners, therein, had all acquired much marks above the cut of marks, as obtained in the selection process, however, they being not appointed, proceeded to direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners against the next available vacancies.

¶37

9. It is to be noted that the Co-ordinate Bench had not interfered with the appointments already made from the select list as prepared for the district of Sivasagar. The State authorities, being aggrieved by the said selection, had approached this Court by way of filing a writ appeal, being WA No. 50/2022.

¶38

10. A Division Bench of this Court considered the said writ appeal, along with a writ appeal, being WA No. 323/2021, filed by the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2725/2010. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.06.2024, proceeded to allow the writ appeal, being WA No. 50/2022, filed by the State, thereby, interfering with the judgment and order dated 22.02.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2725/2010.

¶39

11. The petitioners have instituted the present writ petition only on 27.11.2020, i.e., after the passing of the judgment and order dated 22.02.2019 in WP(C) No. 2725/2010. The petitioners are not found to have approached this Court during the validity of the select list in question. The select list in question, having lost its validity on completion of 1 (one) year from the date, it was so published, i.e., 27.11.2010, the present writ petition in the considered view of this Court would not be maintainable. Further aspect that is to be noticed is that while the petitioners have filed the present writ petition after the publication of the select list, they have not arrayed any of the selected candidates as party respondent in the present proceedings.

¶40

Page No.# 5/5

¶41

12. The petitioners have only relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 to advance their case.

¶42

13. The petitioners in the present writ petition have also not brought on record any material to show that they have acquired more marks than the selected candidates in the selection process. The petitioners in the present writ petition are found to be fence-sitters. Accordingly, on account of the delay occasioning in instituting the present writ petition, assailing the select list dated 27.11.2010, this Court is of the considered view that the claim made by the petitioners in the present writ petition, would not mandate an acceptance by this Court.

¶43

14. For the reasons assigned hereinabove, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Sunil Khanikar and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Khanikar and 3 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratul Sarmah Vs Paban Terang and 5 Ors.

Ismail Hussen Mondal Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

M/S Shanti Indane Service Vs Devashish Sharma

Anil Kumar Deuri Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

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

Nripen Kumar Mili Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.