- Court
- High Court of Gauhati
- Decided
- 15 December 2023
- Bench
- Suman Shyam
- Case no.
- WP(C) 7193/2023
Judgment
ORDER
15.12.2023 Heard Mr. D. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, BTC authorities appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. The writ petitioner herein is serving as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Assam Public Works Department and is posted at the Chirang R & B Division. The conditions of service of the petitioner is governed by the Assam Engineering
(PWD) Service Rules, 1978. As per the provisions of the Rules, the petitioner was eligible for being considered for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Executive Engineer. Accordingly, the Departmental Promotion Committee had also considered the case of the petitioner for promotion but had the proceedings kept in sealed cover due to the pendency of Sidli P.S. Case No.49/2015 wherein charge-sheet had been submitted implicating the writ petitioner. The aforesaid fact was also communicated to the petitioner by the communication dated 3.11.2021 issued by the respondent No.1. However, during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner, along with another similarly affected departmental candidate had assailed the criminal proceeding arising out of Sidli P.S. Case No.49/2015 by filing Criminal Petition No.882/2022 wherein, by the order dated 09.10.2023, the learned Single Judge had set aside the charge-sheet submitted in connection with Sidli P.S. Case No.49/2015 registered under Sections 120(B)/406/409/420 of the IPC read with Section 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act, 1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that Page No.# 3/4 despite the setting aside of the criminal proceeding in connection with Sidli P.S. Case No.49/2015, the sealed cover proceeding has not yet been opened as a result of which, the petitioner has been deprived of his promotion. Mr. D. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7902/2022 instituted by Sri Prashna Brahma expressing similar grievance, to submit that the writ petition filed by that petitioner was allowed by this Court. Mr. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, BTC authorities, has also fairly submitted that in view of the order dated 08.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.7902/2022 he would have no objection if this writ petition is also disposed of in similar lines. From a reading of the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7902/2022, I find that the petitioner therein, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), PWD, was also considered for promotion and his case was also kept in sealed cover due to pendency of Sidli P.S. Case No.49/2015. After the judgment and order dated 09.10.2023 passed in Criminal Petition No.882/2022, the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.7902/2022 had approached this Court by making a similar prayer, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, subject, however, to the condition that no departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner. The present petitioner is also similarly situated as the petitioner in WP(C) No.7902/2022 and is praying for similar relief. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of by providing that the "sealed cover" proceeding in respect of the petitioner be opened and thereafter, consequential orders be passed therein subject, however, to the Page No.# 4/4 condition that there was no departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner at the relevant point of time. The exercise may be completed as expeditiously as possible but not later than 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Case details
Parties and counsel
PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010266462023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/7193/2023o JOYoPRAKASHoMACHAHARYo S/OoSRIoBINODoBHUSHANoMACHAHARY,oR/OoVILL-GWJWNPURI,oWARDo NO.o4,oP.O.-CHAPAGURI,oP.S.-DHALIGAON,oDIST-CHIRANGo(BTAD),oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORS.o REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSPECIALoSECRETARYoTOo THEoGOVERNMENToOFoASSAM,oPUBLICoWORKSoROADSoDEPARTMENT,o DISPUR,oGUWAHATI-6 2:THEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFoASSAM oPUBLICoWORKSoDEPARTMENT oDISPUR oGUWAHATI-6 3:THEoPRINCIPALoSECRETARY oBODOLANDoTERRITORIALoCOUNCIL oP.O.oANDoDIST-KOKRAJHAR oASSAM 4:THEoADDITIONALoCHIEFoENGINEER oPUBLICoWORKSoDEPARTMENT oP.O.oANDoDIST-KOKRAJHAR oASSAo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oDoPoBORAHo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oSC,oPWDoROADoo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.