Devajani Dhar vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5012 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010162242020




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/5688/2022

            DEVAJANI DHAR
            W/O- SRI HARIBHUJAN DEBANATH, R/O- GARUBONDHA, MISAMARI, P.O.
            MISSAMARI, P.S. MISSAMARI, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
            REP. BY JOINT SECRETARY GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPTT. OF SCHOOL
            EDUCATION AND LITERACY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES
            DEVELOPMENT, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001

            2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
             REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
             EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPTT.
             DISPUR
             GHY-6

            3:THE DIRECTOR
             ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
            ASSAM
             KAHILIPARA
             GHY-1

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P J SAIKIA

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
                                                                             Page No.# 2/3


                                       :: BEFORE ::
                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                       O R D E R

16.12.2022

Heard the learned counsel Mr. P.J. Saikia appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, th``e learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Assam.

This writ petition is connected to WP(C)/24/2021. Paragraph 53 of the said judgment is relevant in this case and therefore, quoted as under:

"53. There can be no doubt about the fact that the ultimate beneficiary of this recruitment process would be the large number of children who may suffer if there is undue delay in appointment of teachers. We are also conscious of the fact that there are 3941 vacancies advertised by the department and the total number of writ petitioners who had approached this court is 916. We make it very clear that all these 916 candidates shall be considered against the existing 3941 vacancies. But even if their candidature is ultimately accepted, all the writ petitioners including the present appellants can at best fill up 916 vacancies and no further. Although, there are only 50 appellants before us who have assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, yet, since the impugned judgment has been set aside and in order to avoid future litigations on the same issue, we deem it appropriate to grant similar relief to the appellants as the other writ petitioners who are not before us but are similarly situated."

The present petitioner is within the aforesaid 916 candidates but she could not apply for the post in response to the advertisement.

Mr. Kaushik submits that her application was not considered because she Page No.# 3/3

applied after the stipulated last date of filing of applications.

Mr. Saikia, on the other hand, submits that though the last date of filling of application was of 26.09.2020, the petitioner could not submit her application because the computerized system malfunctioned.

I have given my anxious considerations made by the learned counsels of both sides.

This Court has given an opportunity to 916 candidates, which includes the present petitioner also, to apply for the recruitment process of teacher. Therefore, she deserves to be given an opportunity to file her application and to take part in the recruitment process.

Considering the aforesaid fact, the respondents are directed to consider the application of the present petitioner and to give her an opportunity to take part in the recruitment process.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant