Gauhati High Court
Sri Saktidhar Gathiri vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 28 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010039032025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/243/2025
SRI SAKTIDHAR GATHIRI
S/O SRI GOJEN GATHIRI, VILLAGE CHAKALI BHORIA GAON, PO
TENGAKHAT, DISTRICT DIBRUGARH-786103.
VERSUS
1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE COMMISSIONER UPPER ASSAM DIVISION JORHAT
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIBRUGARH ASSAM
4:RITUMONI DAS
HEAD ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DIBRUGARRH ASSAM
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M. Saikia, Advocate.
Ms. R. Dutta, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate for respondent No.4.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
28.08.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.
Page No.# 2/4
Dutta, learned Advocate for respondent No.4.
2. There is no appearance on behalf of the other respondents.
3. In this writ appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and
order dated 26.11.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C)
4. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.05.2022 for filling up the
post of Head Assistant in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner,
Dibrugarh, the appellant and others had applied, but, respondent No.4 was
declared to be successful.
5. The appointment of respondent No.4 on such post was challenged
by the appellant on the ground that she was wrongly considered for
appointment as according to the terms and conditions stipulated in the
advertisement, a candidate who would not have completed at least 10(ten)
years of service as Senior Assistant including Supervisory Assistant in different
branches of amalgamated establishment of the office of the Deputy
Commissioners in the State of Assam would not be permitted to apply for such
post.
6. It appears from the reading of the terms and conditions of the
advertisement that the eligibility condition was only of a candidate possessing
10(ten) years of service as Senior Assistant or as Supervisory Assistant in
different branches of the office. The terms and conditions regarding eligibility
criteria do not specify that for a person to apply against such advertisement,
he/she has to be a Supervisory Assistant as well.
There is no denial of the fact that the respondent No.4 had the
requisite experience as a Senior Assistant.
Page No.# 3/4
7. An objection was raised that respondent No.4 was junior to the
appellant, which objection has no legs to stand as it is a case of fresh
appointment on the post of Head Assistant, where all eligible candidates, senior
or junior, would have appeared if the eligibility requirements are fulfilled.
8. The other objection raised on behalf of the appellant before the
learned Single Judge was that the service of the respondent No.4 was never
confirmed, which was found to be factually incorrect. The service of respondent
No.4 was confirmed in accordance with Assam Ministerial District Establishment
Service Rules, 1967, which permits confirmation with restoration of seniority
even beyond the specified period, provided other conditions are satisfied.
9. The facts on record indicate that services of respondent No.4 were
confirmed, though later.
10. In that view of the matter, there does not appear to be any basis for
the appellant to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4. It further
appears from the records that 4(four) persons were recommended for selection
of Head Assistant. One Ms. Malati Borah was placed at Serial No.1; the
respondent No.4 was placed at Serial No.2 and the appellant was placed at
Serial No.3. Another candidate was placed at Serial No.4. Since Smt. Malati
Borah had withdrawn her candidature because of her selection to the post of
Revenue Sheristadar, the respondent No.4 became highest in merit and so she
was selected/appointed on the post of Head Assistant.
11. The learned Single Judge has rightly analysed that the eligibility
condition set out in the advertisement dated 25.05.2022 does not specify that
only such candidates would be allowed to appear for appointment to the post of
Head Assistant, who would have possessed the experience of working as
Page No.# 4/4
Supervisory Assistant in the amalgamated establishments. If a candidate had at
least 10(ten) years of service as Senior Assistant also, he/she would fall in the
category of eligible persons to apply.
12. In the present case, respondent No.4 had the requisite experience
and she was placed higher than the appellant.
13. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for us to interfere with
the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby the challenge put up by the
appellant herein was rejected.
14. There is no merit in this appeal.
15. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
