Mahua Dutta Roy vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4996 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Mahua Dutta Roy vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. ... on 12 December, 2023

                                                                Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010036402020




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1132/2020

         MAHUA DUTTA ROY
         D/O- LT. BHUPESH CHANDRA DUTTA ROY, R/O- C/O- SAMARENDRA DEB,
         JAGAT BANDHU LANE, N.H. ROAD, W/NO. 19, P.S. RANGIRKHARI,
         CACHAR, SILCHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788005.



         VERSUS

         ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 7 ORS.
         REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR,
         GHY.- 781001.

         2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
          REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
         ASSAM POWER ( ELECTRICITY) DEPTT.
         ASSAM SECRETARIAT
          DISPUR
          GHY.-06.

         3:THE CHAIRMAN
          SELECTION COMMITTEE-B
         APDCL/ APGCL/ AEGCL
          BIJULEE BHAWAN
          PALTANBAZAR
          GHY.- 781001.

         4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAHER (HRA)
         APDCL
          BIJULEE BHAWAN
          PALTAN BAZAR
          GHY.- 781001.

         5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                                                            Page No.# 2/7

             CACHAR CIRCLE
             APDCL/ CAR
             SILCHAR
             DIST.- CACHAR
             ASSAM
             PIN- 788015.

            6:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER
             SILCHAR ELECTRICAL DIVISION-I
            APDCL/ CAR
             SILCHAR
             DIST.- CACHAR
            ASSAM
             PIN- 788005.

            7:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER
             SILCHAR ELECTRICAL DIVISION-II
             MEHERPUR
             SILCHAR
             DIST.- CACHAR
            ASSAM
             PIN- 788015.

            8:SANJAY KR. BHOWMIK
             CHAIRMAN
             SELECTION COMMITTEE-B
             BIJULEE BHAWAN
             PALTANBAZAR
             GUWAHATI- 781001

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P MAHANTA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL




                                  BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

                                          ORDER

Date : 12-12-2023

1. Heard Mr. P Mahanta learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Choudhury, learned standing counsel, APDCL.

2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

Page No.# 3/7

I. The provisional merit list of all the 1423 candidates published on 10.2.2020 under the authority of respondent No.3 for the post of Office cum Field Assistant (experience) in APDCL/AEGCL/APGCL on the basis of OMR based examination held on 28.4.2019 should not be set aside and quashed.

II. The notification bearing No.APDCL/Selection Committee - B/2017-18/Pt-I/1 dated 10.2.2020 issued by the respondent No.3 short listing as many as 692 candidates from the provisional merit list published on the same date, should not be set aside and quashed as a whole for want of jurisdiction as well as violation of the Hon'ble Court's order dated 27.2.2019 passed in WP(C) No.1359/2019.

3. Earlier the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No.1359/2019 which is filed with a grievance that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in a selection process for recruitment to the post of Office cum Field Assistant, Sahayak and Mali pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.08.2018 issued by the Assam Power Distribution Company limited (APDCL) and two of its sister companies i.e., Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited (AEGCL) and Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGCL).

4. This Court under its order dated 27.02.2019 at the motion stage itself allowed the petitioner to participate in the selection process subject to filing an appropriate application by the petitioner within the time in terms of an advertisement before the competent authority. The order dated 27.02.2019 was passed on the basis of a similar order of this Court dated 13.02.2019 passed in WP(C) Page No.# 4/7

No.990/2019. Subsequent to that the petitioner had participated in the selection process.

5. A large number of petitioners with a similar grievance approached this court by filing different writ petitions and by a common judgment dated 27.08.2019 passed in different writ petitions, this Court issued the following directions:

I. The reconstituted committee shall examine and find out the actual experience of the outsourced workers including that of the petitioners in terms of the office order dated 24.08.2019;

II. Those applicants who are found to be eligible as per the experience criteria in terms of the advertisement and who could not appear in the written examination, a separate written examination shall be arranged for such candidates. Those who had appeared in the written examination need not appear again;

III. The result of the written examination already conducted on 28.04.2019 should not be declared now and should await completion of the separate examination of those found eligible by the committee;

IV. Thereafter results of both the examination should be combined and a consolidated select list should be declared;

V. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

VI. If any applicant has any further grievance relating to non- suitability on the ground of experience etc., it will be open to him/her Page No.# 5/7

to avail his/her legal remedy in accordance with law.

6. Pursuant to such direction after an enquiry the Employer submitted a final report of actual experience of the petitioners and all the similarly situated outsourced workers.

7. Pursuant to order of this court dated 28.11.2023 the relevant excerpts pertaining to the petitioner was produced and copy was also given to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. The said excerpt report reveals that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected for the reasons that the petitioner was not having required experience rather, she was having only experience for a period of 31 months which is far less than the required experience of five years or 1780 days in the last 7 (seven) years.

9. The petitioner's case was not under consideration in the aforesaid batch of writ petition and therefore, Mr. Mahanta learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of such determination and accordingly filed the present writ petition subsequent to submission of such report.

10. In the considered opinion of this court, as prior to filing of this present petition, a determination was made pursuant to an order of this court passed in WP(C) No.2643/2019 and after verification of record by an Enquiry Committee, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected for want of experience, this court cannot endeavor to decide the correctness or otherwise of the determination made by the enquiry committee so far the same relates to the Page No.# 6/7

petitioner and determine the merit of the claim of the petitioner. Such exercise shall amount to decide the correctness of the determination made by the Enquiry Committee without the same being under challenge.

11. The direction of this court passed in WP(C) No.2643/2019 is unambiguous and it was directed to the Committee to examine and find out the actual experience of all the outsourced workers and it was not confined only to the writ petitioners. It is also clear from the direction that claim of those applicants who were found to be eligible as per experience were required to be considered. There are two categories of such persons, firstly, those who participated in the earlier selection process having experience and secondly, those who has not been allowed to participate in the selection process. Accordingly, it was provided that those who participated in the earlier selection process and are found to be eligible need not participate in a fresh selection process, however, those who could not participate in the selection process be allowed to participate in a fresh selection process to be conducted for those persons. Therefore, in all meaning and purport, such examination and consideration is to be based on first finding of the fact of eligibility which also includes actual experience of the outsourced workers.

12. From the said direction of this court, it is also clear that if any candidate is having any grievance relating to the dictum of non suitability on the ground of experience etc, it will be open for him/her to avail his/her legal remedy in accordance with law. However, in the case in hand such legal remedy has not been sought for in the present writ petition.

Page No.# 7/7

13. That being the position this Court is of the view that the present petition cannot be entertained and accordingly the same stands closed. However, while parting with the record it is made clear that as the petitioner was allegedly not notified regarding the finding against her and allegedly she was not aware of such fact and accordingly approached this court by filing the present petition, a liberty is granted to the petitioner, if so advised, to take recourse of the remedy as envisaged in the direction issued by this court under the direction No.6 of order dated 27.08.2019 passed in WP(C) No.2643/2019.

14. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands closed. Parties to bear their own cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant