Himani Basumatary and Anr v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

ORDER Date : 16-02-2024

¶1Heard Mr. B. D. Das learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. R Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Chowdhury learned counsel for the respondent.

¶2The petitioners earlier participated in a selection process pertaining to the post of Senior Assistant under the Directorate of PNRD, BTC Kokrajhar pursuant to a notification of selection dated

24.01.2014 for a walk in interview. When the petitioners were not selected to the aforesaid post, they approached this court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.6242/2015.

¶3This court while deciding the aforesaid writ petition passed an order granting liberty to the BTC authority to issue appropriate orders to the petitioners.

¶4A common order dated 25.05.2016 reflects that a statement was made by the petitioner's counsel in WP(C) No.1001/2015, WP(C) 6242/2015 and WP(C) 7259/2015 that due to pendency of WP(C) No.5976/2014 the appointment orders could not be issued to the Page No.# 3/4 petitioners. A submission was further made that as the WP(C) No.5976/2014 has in the meantime withdrawn, there is no impediment for the respondent authorities to issue appointment orders to the petitioners of WP(C) No.1001/2015, WP(C) No.6242/2015 and WP(C) No.7259/2015.

¶5In the aforesaid backdrop this court closed all the aforesaid writ petitions with a liberty to issue appropriate appointment order in respect of the petitioners in the aforesaid three writ petitions and accordingly the writ petitions were closed being infructous.

¶6Subsequently by order dated 17.07.2017 the BTC authority refused to issue appointment to the petitioners in WP(C) No.6242/2015 i.e, the present petitioners.

¶7Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶8The basic ground of refusal to such appointment by the respondent authorities, BTC is that there was glaring mistake in the advertisement dated 24.01.2014, so far the same relates to filing up the post of Senior Assistant under the Directorate of PNRD Department, BTC inasmuch as on the ground that they want to go for a fresh selection.

¶9It was the case of the BTC that there was a glaring mistake in the advertisement so far relating to the educational qualification and experience to the effect that the post of Senior Assistant was to be filled up and an experience of 10 years as Senior Assistant under BTC was sought for and the same was a mistake in fact that ought to have been a Junior Assistant.

¶10The further case of the BTC as reflected in the impugned Page No.# 4/4 order is that so far relating to the post of UDA the advertisement prescribed for 10 years working experience as Junior Assistant/LDA in any establishment of government/semi government offices, however, experience in government office are only the requirement and accordingly it was decided that a fresh selection process will be carried out. The aforesaid order is under challenge.

¶11It is seen from the record that the selection was on the basis of an walk in interview and the competent authority/employer has decided to go for a fresh selection and changing the essential qualification. It is well settled that inclusion of name in the select list shall not confer any indefeasible right for appointment and the employer state can very well withdraw such selection process for sufficient reasons.

¶12In the present case the reason shown in the considered opinion of this court are sufficient inasmuch as the government is within its jurisdiction to have the best possible worker by modifying the experience inasmuch as the reasons shown in the considered opinion can be a valid ground for cancellation of the select list.

¶13If under the fresh selection the petitioners still want to participate, the competent authority of the BTC may consider relaxation of their age in terms of extent norms.

¶14In the aforesaid backdrop, this court finds no merit in the present writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010228872018 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/7431/2018o HIMANIoBASUMATARYoANDoANR.o D/O-oSRIoMATHURAoKANTAoBASUMATARY,oBALAJANoPHCoHOSPITALo QUARTER,oP.O.oHOLTUGAON,oPIN-o783370,oDIST-oKOKRAJHARo(BTAD),o ASSAM 2:oSRIoASHOKoKUMARoDUTTA oS/O-oSRIoSANTOSHoKUMARoDUTTA oR/O-oWARDoNOo4 oVIVEKANANDAoPALLYoTOWN oP.O.oANDoP.S.oBASUGAON oDIST-oCHIRANGo(BTAD) oASSAM oPIN-o78337o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORS.o THROUGHoTHEoCOMM.oANDoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oWPToANDo BCoDEPTT.,oDISPUR,oGHY-6,oPIN-o783370 2:THEoBODOLANDoTERRITORIALoCOUNCIL oREP.oBYoTHEoJOINToSECY. oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oPIN-o783370 oASSAM 3:THEoPRINCIPALoSECY. oBODOLANDoTERRITORIALoCOUNCIL oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM oPIN-o783370 4:THEoMEMBERoSECY. oCENTRALoSELECTIONoBOARD Page No.# 2/4 BTC KOKRAJHAR P.O. KOKRAJHAR DIST- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN- 78337 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAJUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY