Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs Sri Japhed Dhan And 18 Ors on 24 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010079372020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/127/2022
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MIN OF RAILWAYS,
RAIL BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI- 01
2: THE RAILWAY BOARD
REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN
RAIL BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI-1
3: THE RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL
RAIL BHAWAN
RAFI MARG
NEW DELHI-1
4: NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
MALIGAON
GHY-11
5: THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER
RPF
NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GHY-1
VERSUS
SRI JAPHED DHAN AND 18 ORS
S/O- SRI JOYMON DHAN, VILL- NOZPUR, P.O- KOKCHABARI, DIST-
LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784165
2:RATUL DEKA
Page No.# 2/7
S/O SRI DEBEN DEKA
VILL. MEDHI KUCHI
P.O. TEPESIA
PIN-782402
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
3:GOMSAR BORO
S/O SRI JOGEN BORO
VILL. AMGURI
P.O. SILIKHABARI
PIN-784149
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
4:ELIAS PRODHAN
S/O SRI LOREN PRODHAN
VILL. TARAJULI TE
P.O. RANGAPARA
PIN-784505
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
5:PRATAP NAG
S/O SOUL NAG
VILL. TARAJULI TE
P.O. RANGAPARA
PIN-784505
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
6:GULAM NABI AZAD
S/O KASIM ANSARI
VILL. DHULAPADUNG
P.O. THAKURBARI
PIN-784505
DSIT- SONITPUR
ASSAM
7:GANESH UPADHAYA
SRI ACHUT UPADHAYA
VILL. DHEKIPELOWA BENGALI GAON
P.O. GORUBANDHA
PIN-784506
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
8:DINESH BORO
Page No.# 3/7
S/O LT. MADHU RAM BORO
VILL. BAGHMARA
P.O. ULLUBARI
PIN-784149
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
9:RASHMI REKHA DAIMARI
D/O SRI BIPUL DAIMARI
VILL. BAGHMARA
P.O. ULLUBARI
PIN-784149
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
10:PRANJAL DAIMARI
S/O SRI BIPUL DAIMARI
VILL. BAGHMARA
P.O. ULLUBARI
PIN-784149
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
11:BANAJIT TALUKDAR
S/O SRI BHABEN TALUKDAR
VILL. RADHAKUCHI
P.O. KARARA
PIN-781381
DIST- KAMRUP RURAL
ASSAM
12:KAUSIK DALAL
S/O SHRI SANKAR DALAL
C/O PROBIR DALAL
QTR. NO.22A
EAST GOSALA NEAR SHANI MANDIR
MALIGAON
GHY-11
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
13:LINA DEKA
D/O SRI HAREN DEKA
VILL. NAGAON
P.O. PUTHIMARI
PIN-781380
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
Page No.# 4/7
14:BHASWATI KALITA
D/O SRI ATUL KALITA
VILL. RAIPAT
P.O. PANITIMA
PIN-781101
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
15:KESHOR BARWHA
S/O SRI ANIL BARWHA
VILL. TARAJULI TE
P.O. RANGAPARA
PIN-784505
DSIT- SONITPUR
ASSAM
16:ANIL RAWTIA
S/O SRI BHAJOO RAWTIA
VILL. TARAJULI TE
P.O. RANGAPARA
PIN-784505
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
17:AMARENDRA SARMA
S/O SRI BHABEN SARMA
VILL. RADHAKUCHI
P.O. KARARA
PIN-781381
DIST- KAMRUP RURAL
ASSAM
18:KURSED ALAM
S/O ISHAK AHMED
VILL. NAMONIGAON
P.O. RANGAPARA
PIN-784505
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : SC, RAILWAY
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 5/7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
24.11.2022
(R.M. Chhaya, CJ.)
Heard Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel for the appellants.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated
09.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2120/2016, the
respondent railway authorities have preferred this appeal.
It appears from the records of the appeal that an employment notice being
Employment Notice No. 01/2013 was issued by the railway authorities inviting
applications from eligible male and female candidates for filling up various posts of
ancillary staff in different trades in the pay band of Rs. 5200/- to Rs. 20,200/- plus
grade pay of Rs. 2000/- in Railway Protection Force including Railway Protection
Special Force. Challenging the procedure followed by the railway authorities, the writ
petition was filed inter alia praying as under:
"In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that, Your Lordship may be
pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case, issue a Rule calling
upon the Respondents to show cause as to why:
I. A writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction should not be issued to set aside and quash the
impugned Directive-34, dated 08.01.2015 (Anexure-3) issued by the Director
General, Railway Protection Force including Railway Protection Special Force
for NF Railways and consequently to set aside the entire selection process
carried to fill up the posts of Ancillary Staff in different treads in Railway
Protection Force in pursuance to the Employment Notice No. 01/2013, dated
06.12.2013 issued by the Chief Security Commissioner ('CSC'), Railway
Protection Special Force;
II. A writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction should not be issued to cancel/withdraw and/or not to
give effect to the Directive-34, dated 08.01.2015 (Anexure-3) issued by the
Director General, Railway Protection Force;
III. A writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction should not be issued directing the Respondents
Page No.# 6/7
authority to conduct a special recruitment process for filling up the aforesaid
posts of Ancillary Staff in different trades as per the Employment Notice No.
01/2013, dated 06.12.2013 in respect of the State of Assam and/or of the
North East Region in a suitable place in the State against its vacancies under
North East Frontier Railways (NF Railways);
IV. A writ of similar nature should not be issued directing the
Respondents to select the petitioners on merit against the posts of Ancillary
Staff in their respective trade within a stipulated time period and after
showing cause (s) being shown and upon perusal of records and after
hearing the parties, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to make the Rule
absolute by giving full and complete relief to the petitioners and/or pass such
other or further, order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-AND-
In the interim, it is prayed that, pending disposal of this writ petition, this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue direction, restraining the Respondents
authority to complete the final Trade Test for filling up the posts of Ancillary
Staff in different trades in Railway Protection Force including Railway Protection
Special Force for NF Railways in pursuance to the Employment Notice No.
01/2013, dated 06.12.2013 (Annexure-1) issued by the Chief Security
Commissioner (CSC), Railway Protection Special Force and/or pass any other
appropriate order or direction as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the
ends of justice.
The appellants through their counsel made a statement before the learned
Single Judge which is recorded in Paragraph No. 10 of the judgment, which reads as
under:
"10. In the circumstance, Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel makes an offer
that as the rejection of the application of the petitioners involved some amount of
arbitrariness and unreasonableness, the railway authorities are willing to accept the
candidature of the petitioners for giving them a fresh consideration and allow them
to sit in a selection process which would be similar to the procedure and
requirement of the Employment Notice No.1/2013. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also accept the offer of the learned senior counsel.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the
respondent railway authorities shall conduct a de novo written test for the
petitioners in the manner required in the Employment Notice No. 1/2013 and also
subject them to the required physical efficiency test and trade test as provided in
the said Employment Notice No.1/2013 and upon carrying out such exercise, take a
reasoned decision on the acceptability of their candidature for the appointment to
the concerned posts. The required exercise be done within a period of 6 (six)
Page No.# 7/7
months from today. For the purpose, the respondent railway authorities shall issue
required call letters to the petitioners informing them the date and time of written
test to be held."
Even in this proceeding, by way of an additional affidavit for the first time it has
been brought on record that the senior counsel made an erroneous statement. In such
circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the appellants to file an appropriate
review application before the learned Single Judge.
In light of the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of with a liberty to the
appellants to approach the learned Single Judge by way of an appropriate review
application.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
