Gauhati High Court
Rantu Saikia vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 13 August, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010009042016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/990/2016
RANTU SAIKIA
S/O SRI TULASHI SAIKIA, R/O NANGAL GAON, P.O. and P.S. BORHOLLA,
DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785631
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT.
OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
2:PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF FOREST
FORCE
ASSAM
REHABARI
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
PIN-781008
3:ADDL. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ADMN. and VIG.
O/O THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HEAD OF
FOREST FORCE
ASSAM
4:CONSERVATOR OF FOREST PLANNING OFFICER-I
O/O THE P.C.C.F. and H.O.F.F.
ASSAM
REHABARI
GUWAHATI-8
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/6
5:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
FRS DIVISION
GUWAHATI CUM MEMBER SECY.
CENTRAL SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR AFPF CONSTABL
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A BHATTACHARYA, MR.M DUTTA,MR.P P DUTTA,MR.A
BARUA
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,SC, FOREST
WP(C)/557/2016
BISWAJIT BORAH
S/O- MR. HAREN BORAH
R/O VILL.- PANCHNOI NEPALI
P.O.- HUGRAJULI
DIST.- SONITPUR
PIN- 784507
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
FOREST DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY- 6
ASSAM.
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST and HEAD OF FOREST
FORCE
REHABARI
GHY- 8.
3:THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
PLANNING OFFICER- I
O/O- P.C.C.F. and H.O.F.F.
ASSAM
REHABARI
GHY- 8.
------------
Advocate for : MS.N DAIMARI
Advocate for : SC
FOREST appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.
Page No.# 3/6
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
For the Petitioner : Shri M Dutta, Advocate and
Ms. S Shankar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Shri RR Gogoi, SC, Forest Deptt.,
Assam.
Date of Hearing : 13.08.2024.
Date of Judgment : 13.08.2024.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Heard Shri M Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/990/2016 and
Ms. S Shankar, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri PN Sarmah, learned
counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/557/2016. Also heard Shri RR Gogoi, learned
Standing Counsel, Forest Department, Assam.
2. Both these writ petitions being on the same subject, those are taken up for an
analogous hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3. A recruitment process was initiated for the post of Assam Forest Police Force
(AFPF) Constable vide an advertisement dated 23.04.2015. It is the case of the
petitioners that they were found to be qualified in the elimination race, physical
efficiency test consists of 100 metres race, high jump and long jump. However, they
were not short listed in the viva-voce and accordingly, in the select list published on
Page No.# 4/6
24.01.2016, their names did not figure.
4. Shri Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/990/2016 has submitted
that his client belongs to the MOBC category and had completed the elimination race
of 1.6 kilometer within the prescribed time of 7 minutes. He had also qualified the
physical efficiency test consisting of 100 metre race, high jump and long jump. It is
the principal grievance of the petitioner that there was no prescription in the
advertisement of short listing of candidates for viva-voce. He accordingly submits that
necessary interference be made and the candidature of the petitioner be duly
considered.
5. Ms. Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/557/2016 while
endorsing the submissions of Shri Dutta, learned counsel, has also submitted that
having found qualified in the physical efficiency test, there was no reason not to
include the petitioner for the viva-voce. She has also submitted that on 24.01.2016, a
select list was published for candidates to appear for viva-voce to be held from
08.02.2016.
6. Per contra, Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the writ
petitions have been structured on erroneous presumption. It is submitted that short
listing of candidates to face the viva-voce is a part of the recruitment and is not
required to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement. He submits that unless a
process adopted is grossly unreasonable or mala fide, such process does not call for
any interference, more particularly when the same is adopted for the sake of
convenience and to efficiently conclude the recruitment process.
7. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed in both the cases, the learned
Standing Counsel has dealt with the aspect as to why the petitioners' names did not
Page No.# 5/6
figure in the short listed candidates. It is stated that while the cut off mark for the
category of OBC/MOBC is 24, the petitioners got 21.5 and 12.5, respectively. It is
submitted that the cut off mark has been calculated by taking into account the
number of candidates and the total marks which was stipulated as 35. He has also
submitted that here is no mala fide alleged. The learned Standing Counsel has also
highlighted the aspect that while the short listing of selected candidates has been
challenged, none of those candidates have been made party.
8. Shri Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder has, however,
submitted that in a subsequent writ petition, being WP(C)/4532/2016 in which though
there was a direction to fill up the 105 numbers of vacant posts, the same was to be
done after carrying out necessary rectification. The learned counsel has, however,
submitted that he is not aware of the development which had taken place thereafter.
9. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials on records
have been carefully examined.
10. The entire fulcrum on which the petitioners have based their cases is their
success in the physical efficiency test which consisted of completion of 1.6 kilometer
race within a stipulated time of 7 minutes, high jump and long jump and 100 metre
race. Though it is claimed that the petitioners had qualified, it appears that marks
were allotted and out of total marks of 35, cut off marks were also prescribed for
various categories. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed in these cases, it reveals that
so far as the OBC and MOBCs are concerned, the cut off mark was 24. It is also
revealed, as observed above that while the cut off mark was 24, the petitioners had
secured 21.5 and 12.5 marks, respectively. Short listing of candidates to be called for
viva voce, per se cannot be held to be illegal or improper rather, in the opinion of this
Page No.# 6/6
Court, such short listing would be necessary for the exigency of completion of the
recruitment process in a smooth and fair manner by taking into account the number of
vacancies and the total number of candidates who had applied for the said post. The
matter would have been different if the marks secured by the petitioners were above
the cut off marks in the concerned category which is not the case. The aspect that the
selected candidates whose names figured amongst the short listed candidates have
not been made parties is also a relevant consideration.
10. The aspect of the order passed in WP(C)/4532/2016 has also been taken into
consideration. Though it is submitted that the recruitment was directed to be
completed by filling up the post by undertaking necessary rectification, a bare look in
the order which has been placed before this Court would show that the petition has
been held to be devoid of merit apart from being not maintainable for not impleading
the selected candidates. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said order would
not come to any aid of the petitioners in these cases.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
