Gauhati High Court
Md. Jalil Ali vs The State Of Assam And 23 Ors on 22 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010007162014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1435/2014
MD. JALIL ALI
S/O- LT. AZAD ALI, VILL. and P.O.- CHATAMA, P.S.- GHOGRAPAR, PIN-
781350, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 23 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DEPTT. OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, DISPUR, GHY- 6.
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
ASSAM
REHABARI
GHY- 8.
3:THE PLANNING OFFICER- I
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HEAD OF
FOREST FORCE
ASSAM
REHABARI
GHY- 8.
4:STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER and CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
LEGAL
O/O THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HEAD OF FOREST
FORCE
ASSAM
REHABARI
GHY- 8.
5:THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
Page No.# 2/6
ASSAM
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GHY- 6.
6:FARZINA SULTANA MONOWAR
D/O- MONOWAR ALI
VILL.- DARBAR ROAD
WARD NO. 2
P.O. and DIST- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM.
7:SOPHIA VANLALCHHUANAWMI LUSHAI
D/O- LT. LALSANGA
VILL.- GRACELAND NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE
HAFLONG
P.O.- HAFLONG
DIST.- N.C. HILLS
ASSAM.
8:SAMIRAN DUTTA
S/O- SATYA RANJAN DUTTA
VILL.- DULIAJAN
P.O.- ANANDAPUR
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
9:MAHAMMAD ALI
S/O- LT. ABDUL MATALIB
VILL.- BARUNGURI
P.O.- LAILURI
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM.
10:SHAMSUL ISLAM
S/O- INSAN ALI
VILL.- KOCHAKHAITY
P.O.- MAGURMARI
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM.
11:HEDAYAT ULLAH
S/O- MD. ABDUR RAHMAN
VILL.- BHAGAMUR
P.O.- KOIMARI
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM.
Page No.# 3/6
12:ABDUL JABBAR
S/O- ABDUL GOFUR
VILL.- KOIMARI
P.O.- KOIMARI
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM.
13:HIMEN KUMAR BORO
S/O- SURENDRA BORO
VILL.- TEPECHIA
P.O.- BOKO
DIST.- KAMRUP.
14:DIPANKAR DAS
S/O- LT. KHITISH CH. DAS
VILL.- PAHARPARA
P.O.- NAGERBERA
DIST.- KAMRUP.
15:MRINAL DAS
S/O- LT. CHAKRADHAR DAS
VILL.- MAMUN BARDI
P.O. and DIST.- BARPETA.
16:IMDADUL HOQUE
S/O- MD. SHAMSUDDIN
VILL.- PUB SINGIMARI
P.O.- SINGIMARI
DIST.- NAGAON.
17:LAKHIMI BORA HAINARY
C/O- PRANAB JYOTI HAINARY
VILL.- SHIMALGURI
P.O.- SHIMALGURI
DIST.- LAKHIMPUR.
18:ALMINUR RAHMAN
S/O- HABIBUR RAHMAN
VILL.- DHAIALI WARD NO. 1
P.O.- SIVASAGAR.
19:SIRAJUL ISLAM
S/O- LT. MUSLIM
VILL.- SIBHARAL
P.O.- CHANGSARI
KAMRUP.
20:MAYURI CHANGMAI PHUKAN
Page No.# 4/6
D/O- TARUN PHUKAN
VILL.- TAPUBAN- I
P.O.- RUPAI SIDING
DIST.- TINSUKIA.
21:DUL SHEKHAR SONOWAL
S/O- KESHOB SONOWAL
VILL.- NEGHERI GAON
P.O.- BORHOLLA
DIST.- JORHAT
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.B GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S BORTHAKURR- 21
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 22.01.2021
Heard Mr. B. Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1435/2014. Also
heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing counsel for the Forest Department.
2. The petitioner's grievance is that he had taken part in the selection process, in
pursuance to the Advertisement dated 13.08.2010, notified by the Planning Officer-I in the
office of the Principal of Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Assam, for
the post of Junior Assistant Divisional Level. The petitioner's counsel submits that while the
Advertisement dated 13.08.2010 had provided that the selection test would compromise of (i)
Written test (a) General English (b) General Knowledge (c) General Arithmetic (ii) Computer
eligibility test (iii) Typing test (iv) Viva-voce, no marks were allotted for the Computer
eligibility test. He submits that the respondents should have allotted marks for the Computer
eligibility test.
3. Mr. K.P. Pathak, the learned counsel for the Forest Department submits that the final
Page No.# 5/6
selection of the candidates was made on the basis of the marks secured in the written
examination and viva-voce. 100 marks had been allotted for written examination and 50
marks were allotted for viva-voce. The petitioner who belonged to the General category
secured 123 marks, whereas the last general candidate who was selected on merit secured
130 marks. He submits that no marks were allotted to any of the candidates for the Computer
eligibility test. As such, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner for not allotting him any
marks for the Computer eligibility test.
4. The counsel for the Forest Department also submits that the present case is covered by
the Judgment dated 02.04.2019 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1223/2013, in which the
selection made on the basis of the said Advertisement dated 13.08.2010 had been challenged
on the same ground.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. On perusing the Judgment dated 02.04.2019, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.
1223/2013 "Diganta Kalita Vs. State of Assam & 5 Ors.", this Court finds that the present case
is a covered matter. The finding of this Court in WP(C) No. 1223/2013 is reflected in
paragraph No. 9 of the said judgment dated 02.04.2019, which is as follows:-
"9. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival
parties and I have perused the materials available on record. As may be noticed, the
petitioner in WP(C) No. 1223/2013 had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C)
No. 5758/2012. The writ petition was dismissed since Court was of the opinion that
the petitioner was unable to show any instance about the alleged illegality in the
selection made for the post in question. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ
Page No.# 6/6
petition, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again if the reply
given to him on his RTI application merited fresh cause of action. On getting a reply to
his RTI application, the petitioner is again before this Court through the present writ
petition alleging that the respondents ought to have given marks towards the Typing
Test that was conducted and also marks towards the correct answer given vide
question No. 40 in the General English Paper. A similar stand has also been taken by
the petitioner in WP(C) No. 6804/2013. What can be seen is that both the petitioners
failed to score the cut-off marks in the respective categories they belonged to and
therefore, it is their case that allotment of 1 (one) mark each to them would make
Page No.# 10/12 them eligible to be selected for the post concerned. It is the specific
stand of the respondents that no marks were allotted on Computer Eligibility Test or
Typing Test to any of the candidates. If that be so, the petitioners are only in the same
footing with others and they cannot have any grievance in this regard ............."
7. In view of the above, as the petitioner has taken part in the selection process, wherein
all the candidates have been treated equally by the respondents, the petitioner cannot now
turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. In this regard, the Apex
Court has held in the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, reported in (2013) 11
SCC 309 that the person who consciously takes part in the selection process cannot,
thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.
8. In view of the reasons stated above, there being no merit in the writ petition, the Writ
Petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
