Mahesh Hazarika vs The Gauhati High Court And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1587 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Mahesh Hazarika vs The Gauhati High Court And 2 Ors on 30 July, 2025

                                                                   Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010156722025




                                                            undefined

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

                            Case No. : WA/229/2025

         MAHESH HAZARIKA
         S/O LATE NARAYAN HAZARIKA, VILL. AND P.O. NAHIRA, P.S.
         PALASHBARI, DIST. KAMRUP (ASSAM), PIN 781132



         VERSUS

         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 2 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT,
         MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, GUWAHATI 1

         2:THE REGISTRAR (ADMIN) CUM IC
          CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT
          GAUHATI HIGH COURT
          GUWAHATI
         ASSAM

         2:THE REGISTRAR (ADMIN) CUM I.C.
          CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT
          GAUHATI HIGH COURT
          MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
          GUWAHATI 1

         3:RANDHIR KUMAR @ RANDHIR SINGH (PAL)
          S/O RAMSWARUP PAL
          R/O BAHADURPUR
          P.S. CHANDI
          DIST. NALANDA
          STATE BIHAR
          C/O THE REGISTRAR GAUHATI HIGH COURT GAUHATI HIGH COURT
          MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
          GUWAHATI 1
                                                                            Page No.# 2/4

            3:RANDHIR KUMAR ALIAS RANDHIR SINGH (PAL)
             NALANDA
             BIHAR

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N BORAH, G. R. SINGHA,MR. J PATOWARY

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GHC,




                                  BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

                                         ORDER

30.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

The appellant had applied for being selected as a Barkandaz

(driver) against an advertisement issued on 09.12.2013 by the

Gauhati High Court. The private respondent, however, was able to

steal a march over the appellant. Appointment letter was issued to

him in the year 2015. The appellant after having come to know

through extraneous sources that the private respondent was not

eligible for being appointed, sought information under the RTI Act

and could learn that the driving licence of the private respondent

was valid from 24.01.2014 to 23.01.2017. The last date for submission

of application was upto 5:00 p.m. of 23.12.2013. Thus, for all

practical purposes, the respondent No.5 did not have a valid

licence for applying for the job of a Barkandaz and therefore, was

not eligible for being chosen as one. The other fact which the Page No.# 3/4

appellant could gather was that on the day when he applied for

the post, he had not attained yet attained majority. A person to

have a licence has to be 20 years old as provided under Section

4(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The challenge was rejected by the learned Single Judge by

the judgment dated 19.06.2025 passed in WP(C) No.763/2018 on

the ground that the appellant had questioned such appointment

after three years of the issuance of the appointment letter and that

there was no requirement in the advertisement about any

mandatory requirement of the applicant possessing a transport

vehicle licence.

The learned counsel for the appellant while challenging the

afore-noted decision has submitted that the delay was not on

account of his inaction or latches but because the matter

remained pending for long before the Courts of law. No sooner

had the appellant learnt about the private respondent not being of

the age for him to be considered for appointment, he garnered

further/concrete information under the RTI and challenged his

appointment before this Court in 2018. The other reason which

weighed with the learned Single Judge, the learned Advocate for

the appellant argues, is not acceptable.

Page No.# 4/4

A driving licence of whichever kind is given to a person who is

a major and not otherwise. The distinction between a licence of

transport vehicle and a driving licence is absolutely illusory.

Let notice be issued to the private respondent by both

modes, i.e. by registered post with A/D as well as by usual process,

on steps being taken by the appellant within a period of two

weeks, returnable in eight weeks.

Re-notify on 25.09.2025.

                             JUDGE                      CHIEF JUSTICE



Comparing Assistant