Gauhati High Court
Mahua Dutta Roy vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. ... on 1 October, 2024
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010042882019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1359/2019
MAHUA DUTTA ROY
D/O. LT. BHUPESH CHANDRA DUTTA ROY, R/O. C/O. SAMARENDRA DEB,
JAGAT BANDHU LANE, N.H. ROAD, WARD NO. 19, P.S. RANGIRIKHARI,
CACHAR SILCHAR, ASSAM-788005.
VERSUS
ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTANBAZAR,
GUWAHATI-781001.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
ASSAM POWER (ELECTRICITY) DEPTT.
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
DISPUR
GHY.-06.
3:THE CHAIRMAN
SELECTION COMMITTEE-B
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PANTANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-781001.
4:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA)
APDCL
BIJULEE BHAWAN
PALTANBAZAR
GHY.-781001.
5:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CACHAR CIRCLE
APDCL/CAR
SILCHAR
Page No.# 2/5
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM-788015.
6:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER
SILCHAR ELECTRICAL DIVISION-I
APDCL/CAZ
SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788005.
7:THE ASSTT. GENERAL MANAGER
SILCHAR ELECTRICAL DIVISION-II
MEHERPUR
SILCHAR
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM-788015
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, MS. P SAHARIA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 01-10-2024
Heard Ms. C. Sharma, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P. Mahanta,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned
Standing Counsel, APDCL for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. C.K.S. Baruah,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.
2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is seeking direction inter alia to publish the name of
the petitioner in the final list shortlisted for the written examination to be
held on March, 2013 for the post of Office-cum-Field Assistant
Page No.# 3/5
(Experienced) / Sahayak (experienced) in respect of Silchar Electrical Sub
Division - II under Cachar Electrical Circle and also to allow the petitioner
to sit in the written examination for the said post.
3. Today when the matter is called, it is submitted by Mr. Choudhury,
learned Standing Counsel, APDCL that subsequent to the filing of the
present writ petition, the petitioner by way of W.P.(C) no. 1132/2020,
approached this Court assailing the prevailing merit list of all the 1423
candidates published on 10.02.2020 under the authority of respondent no.
3 for the subject post.
4. It appears that this Court by Order dated 12.12.2023, closed the said
writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse of the remedy as
envisaged in the direction issued by this Court under the direction no. 6 of
the Order dated 27.08.2019 passed in W.P.(C) no. 2643/2019.
5. Para 3, 5, 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the aforesaid Order dated 12.12.2023 is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference :-
'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).
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:
Page No.# 4/5
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 nonsuitability on the ground of
experience etc., it will be open to him/her to avail his/her legal remedy in accordance with
law.
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
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
Page No.# 5/5
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.
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.'
6. Apparent reading from the above paragraphs of the Judgment and Order
dated 12.12.2023 in W.P.(C) no. 1132/2020, nothing survives for adjudication of
the present writ petition.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed on being infructuous.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
