Gauhati High Court
Sri Juganta Kumar Nath vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 21 February, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010034022025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/955/2025
SRI JUGANTA KUMAR NATH
SON OF PADMADHAR NATH, R/O- VILLAGE- NATUAGAON, P.O.-
NATUAGAON, PIN- 782105 MORIGAON, DISTRICT- MORIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT , DISPUR,
GUWAHATI- 781006
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI- 781019
3:THE PRINCIPAL
MORIGAON COLLEGE
P.O. AND DISTRICT- MORIGAON
PIN- 782105
ASSAM
4:THE GOVERNING BODY
MORIGAON COLLEGE
MORIGAON
REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT
5:THE SELECTION COMMITEE
CONSTITUTED FOR THE SELECTION OF CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT
OF LABORATORY BEARER UNRESERVED (ROSTER POINT-4)
MORIGAON COLLEGE
MORIGAON
Page No.# 2/4
6:SRI BINOD KUMAR NATH
R/O- VILLAGE NATUAGAON
P.O.- NATUAGAON
PIN- 782105
MORIGAON
DISTRICT- MORIGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K CHOUDHURY, MR P BHARADWAJ,MRIDUNIL M
KASHYAP,MS. ANASUYA C,MR. M SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : -21.02.2025
1. Mr. M.K.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.Bharadwaj,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 21.10.2024,
rejecting the case of the petitioner for the post of Laboratory Bearer in the
Morigaon College, should be set aside.
2. The petitioner's case is that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 06.12.2023,
inviting applications for two posts of Laboratory Bearer, one being reserved for
OBC/MOBC and the other for the unreserved category, the petitioner
participated in the selection process. The petitioner was selected to the post of
Laboratory Bearer in the unreserved category. However, the selection of the
petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 6, on the ground that the
petitioner had participated as an OBC/MOBC candidate, by availing age
relaxation as provided in the Office Memorandum No. ABP.6/2016/51 dated
02.09.2020 (Page-19).
Page No.# 3/4
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that there can be no bar for the petitioner
to be appointed against an unreserved category post, if his marks are higher
than the unreserved category candidates.
4. Mr. S.Das, learned counsel submits that an interim order need not be
issued in view of the fact that as the petitioner's candidature has been rejected,
the unreserved category post would have to be filled up by way of a fresh
advertisement. Further, in terms of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the
Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana -vs- Gujarat Public Service
Commission, reported in (2019) 7 SCC 383, a reserved category candidate
would have to be considered only against a reserved category post, when a
relaxation clause/ standard for reserved category candidates has been availed of
by the said reserved category candidate. The stand of the petitioner on the
other hand, is that the same would depend upon the policy of the Government.
5. Issue notice, returnable in 04(four) weeks.
6. Mr. S.Das, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1
and 2. No formal notice need be issued to him. Extra copy of the writ petition
along with the annexures be furnished within 3 days.
7. Petitioner to take steps for service of notice on the respondent Nos. 3 to 6
by Registered post with A/D within 3 days.
8. List the matter on 25.03.2025.
JUDGE
Page No.# 4/4
Comparing Assistant
