A H Anwar Hussain Barbhuiya and Anr v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010180942024 ooooooo undefined ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWA/396/2024o AoHoANWARoHUSSAINoBARBHUIYAoANDoANRo SONoOFoLATEoHABIBURoALIoBARBHUIYA,o RESIDENToOFoVILL-oBURIBALIoPART-II, oP.S.-oBARKHOLA,oDISTRICT-oCACHAR,oASSAM,oPIN-o788025. 2:oSAIDULoHOQUEoCHOUDHURY oSONoOFo-oABDULoMANNAFoCHOUDHURY oRESIDENToOFoVILL-oJOYDHANPUR oP.O.-oLAILAPURoP.S.-oDHOLAI oDISTRICT-oCACHAR oASSAMoPIN-o788120o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARY,o GOVT.oOFoASSAM,oDEPARTMENToOFoHOMEoAFFAIRS,o DISPUR,oGUWAHATI-06. 2:THEoDIRECTORoGENERALoOFoPOLICE oHQoULUBARI oGUWAHATI-o781007. 3:THEoSTATEoLEVELoPOLICEoRECRUITMENToBOARD oASSAM oREHABARIoGUWAHATI-o781008 oTOoBEoREPRESENTEDoBYoITSoCHAIRMAN. 4:THEoDISTRICToLEVELoPOLICEoRECRUITMENToBOARD oCACHAR oTOoBEoREPRESENTEDoBYoITSoCHAIRMANoCUMoSUPERINTENDENToOFo POLICEoCACHAR oASSAMo Page No.# 2/3 For the appellants : Mr. L.R. Mazumder, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. S. Sarma, Govt. Advocate, Assam – B E F O R E – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 29-11-2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) This writ appeal is filed on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 4534/2023 and other connected writ petitions. A bunch of writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge primarily raising a grievance that the respondents have not followed uniform pattern in allotting marks for the period of service rendered by petitioners either as Home Guards or Special Police Officers (SPOs) while conducting recruitment process for the post of Constables in the Assam Industrial Security Force. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties and on the basis of the consensus arrived at between the counsel for the parties, has disposed of the writ petitions with the direction that the cases of the writ petitioners be liable to be considered by allotting two marks for the certificates submitted by the petitioners wherein the period of service either as Home Guard or SPO has not been specified and if it is found that the petitioners are within the zone of consideration and have secured more than the cut-off marks, the benefit of appointment should be given to them. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents Page No.# 3/3 to revisit the result of the recruitment while taking into consideration the certificates submitted by the petitioners regarding their experience while working as Home Guard or SPO. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that it was also argued before the learned Single Judge that the respondents have evaluated the marks of the written test in arbitrary manner. However, the learned Single Judge has not given any finding on the said aspect. We have gone through the averments made in the writ petition and found that a very vague statement is made on behalf of the writ petitioners that the respondents have evaluated the marks of the written test arbitrarily. No proof of arbitrariness, even prima facie, has been produced by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge in support of their above contention. On such vague allegation, no relief can be granted. Hence, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant