Amanur Hoque v. the Union of India and Othrs

Gauhati HC5 Feb 2026WP(C)/589/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Constable(GD) CAPF recruitment; result 'withheld'; Staff Selection Commission; PST height deficiency cured on appeal; Review Medical Board fit; writ petition not entertained at motion stage for absence of prior enquiry/representation; liberty to submit representation within 7 days; respondents to intimate reasons within 30 days; fresh writ petition permitted; Gauhati High Court; Devashis Baruah, J.; WP(C)/589/2026; order dated 06.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed on being not entertained; liberty to submit a representation to the concerned respondent authorities within 7 days, with the authorities to intimate the reasons within 30 days thereafter; liberty reserved to approach this Court again if aggrieved by the communication. ¶¶31

Amanur Hoque Vs the Union of India and Othrs — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition concerning the petitioner's result being kept in the 'withheld' category should be entertained where the petitioner had made no prior enquiry with the respondents before approaching the Court.

¶¶29

Court's answer

The Court was not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition at this stage because the petitioner had not enquired with the respondents prior to approaching the Court.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

The non-entertainment of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from submitting a representation before the concerned respondent authorities; if such representation is filed within 7(seven) days, the respondent authorities shall intimate the reasons within 30(thirty) days thereafter.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is aggrieved by such communication, he would be at liberty to approach this Court again.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Devashis Baruah, J.), WP(C)/589/2026, decided 06.02.2026. The petitioner had applied pursuant to a notice dated 05.09.2024 for appointment as Constable(GD) in the Central Armed Police Force. Initially found lacking in height in the PST Evaluation, he appealed upon directions of this Court dated 19.09.2025 in WP(C)No.5456/2025 and was found to possess the requisite height as per the advertisement; the Review Medical Board also opined him fit. His grievance was that in the results announced on 15.01.2026 his roll number and name were kept in the category of 'withheld'. Observing that the petitioner had made no enquiry with the respondents prior to approaching the Court, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition at the motion stage and closed it as not entertained, while directing that non-entertainment would not preclude the petitioner from submitting a representation; if filed within 7 days, the respondent authorities were to intimate the reasons within 30 days thereafter, with liberty to approach the Court again if aggrieved.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010011942026

2026:GAU-AS:1606

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/589/2026

¶6

AMANUR HOQUE

¶7

SO AYNOL HOQUE,R/O VILL-JAMLAI, P.O AND P.S NAGARBERA,DIST KAMRUP ,ASSAM, PIN NO 781127, ROLL NO 5105022952

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01

¶10

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03

¶11

3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GUWAHATI ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY 6

¶12

4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE FORCE RECRUITMENT EAST BLOCK 07 LEVEL 4 SECTOR 01

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

RK PURAM NEW DELHI 66

¶15

5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE BLOCK NO IV CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03 8:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DIGP) CRPF CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY GROUP CENTRE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI 2

¶16

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. HR Ahmed

¶17

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. SS Roy, CGC

¶18

B E F O R E

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

ORDER

06.02.2026

Page No.# 3/4

Heard Mr. HR Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. SS Roy, the learned CGC who appears on behalf of all the respondents.

¶24

This Court takes up the instant writ petition for disposal at the motion stage itself.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the notice dated 05.09.2024, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment as Constable(GD) in the Central Armed Police Force.

¶26

The petitioner initially was found lacking in height in the PST Evaluation. However, the petitioner upon the directions passed by this Court dated 19.09.2025 in WP(C)No.5456/2025 submitted an appeal and it was found that the petitioner had the requisite height as per the advertisement.

¶27

It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s medical examination was also conducted, wherein also the Review Medical Board has opined that the petitioner was fit.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that in the results which were announced on 15.01.2026, the petitioner’s roll number and name have been kept in the category of ‘withheld’ and it is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶29

This Court had enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had enquired with the respondents prior to approaching this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner with all fairness submitted that to his instruction there was no such information sought for. Under such circumstances, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition at this stage.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition, therefore, stands closed on being not entertained.

¶32

This Court, however, observes and directs that the non-entertaining of the instant writ petition by this Court by the present order shall not preclude the petitioner to submit a representation before the concerned respondent authorities and if such a representation is filed within a period of 7(seven) days from today, the concerned respondent authorities shall intimate the reasons within 30(thirty) days thereafter.

¶33

It is observed that in the circumstance, the petitioner is aggrieved by such communication, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court again.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Amanur Hoque v. the Union of India and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amanur Hoque v. the Union of India and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti Gayatri Goala Vs the Union of India

Smti Mira Rani Goala Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Samir Baidya @ Samir Sukla Baidya and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Hazrat Ali Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.

Biyola Baruah Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Chandrababu Das Vs Siddharth Singh and 2 Ors.