Upama Chakravarty and 4 Ors v. The State of Assam and 9 Ors

JUDGMENT Date : 12-12-2023

¶1Heard Mr. A Sarma learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Choudhury, learned standing counsel, APDCL.

¶2The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers: I. The provisional merit list of all the 1423 candidates published on 10.2.2020 under the authority of respondent No.3 for the post of Office cum Field Assistant (experience) in APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL on the basis of OMR based examination held on

28.4.2019 should not be set aside and quashed. II. The notification bearing No.APDCL/Selection Committee – B/2017-18/Pt-I/1 dated 10.2.2020 issued by the respondent No.3 Page No.# 4/8 short listing as many as 692 candidates from the provisional merit list published on the same date, should not be set aside and quashed as a whole for want of jurisdiction as well as violation of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 27.2.2019 passed in WP(C) No.1359/2019.

¶3The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners were not allowed to participate in a selection process for recruitment to the post of Office cum Field Assistant, Sahayak and Mali pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.08.2018 issued by the Assam Power Distribution Company limited (APDCL) and two of its sister companies i.e., Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited (AEGCL) and Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGCL).

¶4This Court at the motion stage itself allowed the petitioners to participate in the selection process subject to filing an appropriate application by the petitioners within the time in terms of an advertisement before the competent authority. This court vide order dated 27.02.2019 passed an order on the basis of a similar order of this Court dated 13.02.2019 passed in WP(C) No.990/2019. Subsequent to that the petitioners have participated in the selection process.

¶5A large number of petitioners with a similar grievance approached this court by filing different writ petitions and by a common judgment dated 27.08.2019 passed in different writ petitions including that of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner, this Court issued the following directions: Page No.# 5/8 I. The reconstituted committee shall examine and find out the actual experience of the outsourced workers including that of the petitioners in terms of the office order dated 24.08.2019; II. Those applicants who are found to be eligible as per the experience criteria in terms of the advertisement and who could not appear in the written examination, a separate written examination shall be arranged for such candidates. Those who had appeared in the written examination need not appear again; III. The result of the written examination already conducted on

28.04.2019 should not be declared now and should await completion of the separate examination of those found eligible by the committee; IV. Thereafter results of both the examination should be combined and a consolidated select list should be declared; V. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; VI. If any applicant has any further grievance relating to non-suitability on the ground of experience etc., it will be open to him/her to avail his/her legal remedy in accordance with law.

¶6Pursuant to such direction after an enquiry the Employer submitted a final report of actual experience of the petitioners and all the similarly situated outsourced workers.

¶7Pursuant to order of this court dated 28.11.2023 the relevant excerpts pertaining to the petitioners were produced and copies were Page No.# 6/8 also given to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶8The aforesaid excerpts of the report reflects that the Petitioner No. 1 Upama Chakravarty had only two months of experience, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 namely Firdus Ali and Rajesh Kumar Mitra and petitioner No. 4 Putul Kakaty had only four years of experience and petitioner No.5 Babul Goswami had only 4 years two months of experience respectively which is far less than the required experience of five years or 1780 days in the last 7 (seven) years and accordingly their candidatures were rejected.

¶9In the considered opinion of this court, as prior to filing of this present petition, a determination was made pursuant to an order of this court passed in WP(C) No.2643/2019 and after verification of record by an Enquiry Committee, whereby the candidature of the petitioners was rejected for want of experience, this court cannot endeavor to decide the correctness or otherwise of the determination made by the enquiry committee so far the same relates to the petitioners and determine the merit of the claim of the petitioners. Such exercise shall amount to decide the correctness of the determination made by the Enquiry Committee without the same being under challenge.

¶10The direction of this court passed in WP(C) No.2643/2019 is unambiguous and it was directed to the Committee to examine and find out the actual experience of all the outsourced workers and it was not confined only to the writ petitioners. It is also clear from the direction that claim of those applicants who were found to be eligible Page No.# 7/8 as per experience were required to be considered. There are two categories of such persons, firstly, those who participated in the earlier selection process having experience and secondly, those who has not been allowed to participate in the selection process. Accordingly, it was provided that those who participated in the earlier selection process and are found to be eligible need not participate in a fresh selection process, however, those who could not participate in the selection process be allowed to participate in a fresh selection process to be conducted for those persons. Therefore, in all meaning and purport, such examination and consideration is to be based on first finding of the fact of eligibility which also includes actual experience of the outsourced workers.

¶11From the said direction of this court, it is also clear that if any candidate is having any grievance relating to the dictum of non suitability on the ground of experience etc, it will be open for him/her to avail his/her legal remedy in accordance with law. However, in the case in hand such legal remedy has not been sought for in the present writ petition.

¶12That being the position this Court is of the view that the present petition cannot be entertained and accordingly the same stands closed. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner, if so advised, to take recourse of the remedy as envisaged in the direction issued by this court under the direction No.6 of order dated 27.08.2019 passed in WP(C) No.2643/2019, if permissible under law.

¶13With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands closed. Page No.# 8/8 Parties to bear their own cost.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/8 GAHC010036402020 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/1460/2020ooooooooo UPAMAoCHAKRAVARTYoANDo4oORS. D/O-oLT.oBASANTAoCHAKRAVARTY oVILL-oJYOTINAGAR oP.O.oKRISHNAI oDIST.-oGOALPARA oASSAM oPIN-o783126 2:oFIRDUSoALI S/O-oABDULoMANNAN oVILL-oPADUPARA oP.O.oAMBARI oP.S.oDHUPDHARA oDIST.-oGOALPARA oASSAM oPIN-o783123 o3:oRAJESHoKUMARoMITRA S/O-oBADALoMITRA oVILL-oRAVAPARA oP.O.oDHUPDHARA oP.S.oDHUPDHARA oDIST.-oGOALPARA oPIN-o783123 o4:oPUTULoKAKATY S/O-oSADANANDAoKAKATY oVILL-oPUBoGHAGRAoMAZGAON oP.O.oGHAGRAoBASTI oP.S.oGOHPUR oDIST.-oBISWANATH oPIN-o784168 o5:oBABULoGOSWAMI PageoNo.#o2/8 S/O-oLT.oHARAoNATHoGOSWAMI oVILL-oPUBoBARANGABARI oP.O.oBARANGABARI oP.S.oGOHPUR oDIST.-oBISWANATH oPIN-o784172 oVERSUS THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo9oORS. REP.oBYoTHEoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM oPOWERo(ELECTRICITY)oDEPTT. oA-BLOCK o4THoFLOOR oASSAM oSECRETARIAT oDISPUR oGHY-06 2:THEoCHAIRMAN APDCL oBIJULIoBHAWAN oPALTANoBAZAR oGHY-01 o3:THEoMANAGINGoDIRECTOR APDCL oBIJULIoBHAWAN oPALTANoBAZAR oGHY-01 o4:THEoCHIEFoGENERALoMANAGERo(HRA) APDCL oBIJULIoBHAWAN oPALTANoBAZAR oGHY-01 o5:THEoCHIEFoGENERALoMANAGERo(DISTRIBUTION) CAR oAPDCL oBIJULIoBHAWAN oPALTANoBAZAR oGHY-01 o6:ASSTT.oGENERALoMANAGER GOALPARAoELECTRICALoDIVISION oAPDCL oBHALUKDUBI oGOALPARA o7:ASSTT.oGENERALoMANAGER BISWANATHoELECTRICALoBRANCH oAPDCL oBISWANATH Page No.# 3/8 8:THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER GOHPUR ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION APDCL CAR GOHPUR 9:THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER DHUPDHARA ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION APDCL DHUPDHARA 10:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE-B APDCL/APDCL/AEGCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GHY-01 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN ------------ Advocate for : MR. A SARMA Advocate for : SC APDCL appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 9 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY