Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1417/2023 on 31 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010048882023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1417/2023
1.SAURAV CHETIA AND 14 ORS
S/O- PROMOD CHETIA,
R/O- VILLAGE CHETIA PATHAR, P.O AND P.S- CHABUA,
DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786184
2: MANASH DEKA
S/O- RABIN DEKA
R/O- VILLAGE SONAPUR P.O - PANITEMA
P.S-KAMALPUR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781101
3: SUSMITA BAISHYA
D/O- KANAK BAISHYA
R/O- VILLAGE RUDRESWAR P.O - RANGMAHAL P.S-CHANGSARI
DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781030
4: BISWAJIT KALITA
S/O- NIPEN CHANDRA KALITA
R/O- VILLAGE KENERIKUCHI P.O - DWARKUCHI
P.S-TAMULPUR DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN-781367
5: ALIMUR RAHMAN
S/O- MASATAF ALI
R/O- VILLAGE KALKALIBASTI P.O - CHANDKHIRA
P.S-PATHARKANDI DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788725
6: SUHEL AHMED
S/O- ABDUL MALIK
R/O- VILLAGE KALKALIBASTI P.O - CHANDKHIRA
P.S-PATHARKANDI DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788725
7: RAJIV SARMAH
S/O- BABUL SARMAH
R/O- VILLAGE KULHATI P.O - KULHATI P.S-HAJO
DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781104
Page No.# 2/9
8: SURAJ KALITA
S/O- BHABESH KALITA
R/O- VILLAGE PACHARIA P.O - PACHARIA DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781104
9: SANJOY DAS
S/O- NIRMAL DAS
R/O- VILLAGE DADARA NAPARA P.O - DADARA
DIST- KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM PIN-781104
10: DIMBESWAR DAS
S/O- PRAFULLA DAS
R/O- VILLAGE DADARA NAPARA P.O - DADARA
DIST- KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM PIN-781104
11: KAMAL DEKA
S/O- HEMANTA DEKA
R/O- VILLAGE BARDAI PAKHIA P.O - BAIHATA
DIST- KAMRUP RURAL ASSAM PIN-781380
12: JINTU MANI DEKA
S/O-DIMBESWAR DEKA
R/O- H.NO-5 VILLAGE SONAPUR P.O - PANITEMA
P.S-KAMALPUR DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781101
13: RUPJYOTI SARMA
S/O- BABUL SARMAH
R/O- VILLAGE KULHATI P.O - KULHATI P.S-HAJO
DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN-781104
14: DHRUBA JYOTI KALITA
S/O- HARKANTA KALITA
R/O- VILLAGE KEKERIKUCHI P.O - DWARKUCHI
P.S-TAMYLPUR DIST- BAKSA ASSAM PIN-781367
15: ISPHAK MEHEDI
S/O- MD. HUSSAIN ALI
R/O- VILLAGE MAROI P.O - MAROI P.S-SIPAJHAR
DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784145.
........Petitioners
- VERSUS-
1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001
Page No.# 3/9
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHTI-06.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSAM ACCORD
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
4:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.
122 A G.S. ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781005.
5:THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL)
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED
P.O.-N.R. COMPLEX DIST-GOLAGHAT
ASSAM PIN-785699.
6:THE SENIOR CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD.
122 A G.S. ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781005.
7:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
122 A G.S. ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781005
8:THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICER
DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE
DIST - GOLAGHAT BHOGA GAON
P.O- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-785621.
........Respondents
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For Petitioners : Mr. M. Bhagabati, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Baruah, Government Advocate, Assam for respondent
Nos.2, 3 & 8.
: Mr. J. Roy, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Sarma,
Advocate for respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 & 7.
Page No.# 4/9
Date of Hearing : 31.07.2025.
Date of Judgment : 31.07.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. M. Bhagabati, learned Advocate for the
petitioners, Mr. S. Baruah, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Mr. J. Roy,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. Sarma, learned Advocate for
Numaligarh Refinery Limited, a Public Sector Undertaking.
2. The present petition questions the policy of Numaligarh Refinery
Limited, (hereinafter called "NRL), whereby the recruitment in the service of the
NRL is only through the Employment Exchange of Golaghat.
3. The petitioners have challenged both the Recruitment Rules followed
by NRL and the process initiated by it as those are unconstitutional and violate
fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution guaranteeing
equality before law and equal opportunity in the public employment.
4. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that since 2004, the NRL has
been restricting job advertisements for Lower Grade posts i.e. Grade IV and V,
only to the candidates sponsored by the District Employment Exchange,
Golaghat, thereby excluding the eligible job seekers from other parts of Assam.
5. Until 2003, the recruitment in NRL was conducted through open
advertisements, accessible to all eligible candidates across the State. Since
Page No.# 5/9
2004, a change has been made, which is arbitrary, discriminatory and
unconstitutional.
6. This Court has been informed that earlier in the year 2021, a writ
petition was filed vide WP(C) No.7217/2021 challenging a Notification of August,
2021, whereby the NRL had called for candidates only through the Golaghat
Employment Exchange. Even during the pendency of the case, the NRL
continued with its recruitment process and issued selection orders.
7. The only justification for the same by the NRL is that it has its own
Recruitment Rules for employees other than the officers. Rule 7 of those set of
Rules permits the NRL to limit the recruitment to candidates sponsored by
Golaghat Employment Exchange. The further justification for such restrictive
recruitment policy is the peculiarity of the location and the situs of NRL, which
falls in "No Development Zone" obligating the Company to provide for means of
livelihood for people in the District where the Refinery is situated.
8. Keeping that in mind, the Board of Directors of the Company
approved the amendment to the Recruitment Rules and provided for such
restricted Recruitment Policy.
9. The consideration of the population of Golaghat District, the
declaration of "No Development Zone" in the area and the lean manpower of
NRL were factored in.
10. It was also considered by the Refinery that it was established as a
result of Assam Accord which had emphasized on promotion of local
employment alongside industrial development. Reservation for local candidates
was thus for the purpose of improving the poverty level of the local population
Page No.# 6/9
for whom there would be little employment opportunities.
11. The petitioners, however, have pointed out that way-back in 1996,
the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna
District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 216] had
held that it is a matter of common knowledge that many a candidates are
unable to have their names sponsored by the Employment Exchange though
their names may be registered or they would be waiting to be registered in the
Employment Exchange.
12. Under such circumstance, if the choice of selection by a Company is
restricted to only such of the candidates whose names would be sponsored by
such Employment Exchange, it would not be in consonance with the principles
of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. Many a deserving candidates would
then be deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under
the State.
13. It was thus held that it is mandatory for the Requisitioning
Authority/Establishments to intimate the Employment Exchange which in turn
should sponsor the names of the candidates to the Requisitioning Departments
for selection, strictly according to seniority and reservation as per requisition.
In addition, it was observed that the appropriate Department or
undertaking or Establishment should call for the names by publication in the
newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice
boards and announce on radio, television and employment news bulletin and
then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied.
The Supreme Court opined that if this procedure is adopted, fair play
would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in matters of employment
Page No.# 7/9
would then be available to all the candidates.
14. It would be relevant in this context to refer to the Employment
Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 [for short, Act of
1959].
15. Section 4 of the Act of 1959, referred to above, mandates that the
employer in every establishment in public sector in that State or area shall,
before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify
that vacancy to such Employment Exchanges as may be prescribed. However, it
shall not be obligatory for any establishment in the public sector to recruit only
those persons who would be sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
16. A plain reading of Section 4 of the Act of 1959 in its entirety would
suggest that the employer is under no obligation to recruit any person through
Employment Exchange only.
17. Thus, there being no statutory intendment, the employer should
always, therefore, care for providing equality of opportunity for all eligible
candidates.
18. In State of Orissa & Anr.. Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC
436, the Supreme Court made a pithy observation regarding cascading impact
of restricting the employment only to persons sponsored by an Employment
Exchange. Even though, initially it was thought that such method of
employment would curb the menace of nepotism and corruption in public
employment, but later, it was found that a practice more consistent with Article
16 would be to make the employment open for public at large.
19. Such views have been echoed in other judgments of the Supreme
Page No.# 8/9
Court as well. [Refer to Delhi Development Horticulture Empoloyees'
Union Vs. Delhi Administration (1992) 4 SCC 99; State of Haryana Vs.
Piara Singh (1992) 4 SCC 118 and State of MP Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim (2009)
15 SCC 214].
20. On a holistic reading of all the afore-noted pronouncements of the
Supreme Court, it appears that 100% reservation for Employment Exchange
sponsored candidates would not muster the test of constitutionality.
21. During the course of the argument, Mr. Bhagabati, learned Advocate
has informed this Court that now the reservation has been reduced to 30%.
22. This also would not serve any purpose.
23. We say so for the reason that if the recruitment process is open to
all eligible candidates, it shall cater to the needs of the local population as well.
It cannot be said with certainty that all persons of Golaghat or neighbouring
areas would have registered themselves with the Employment Exchange; in
which case they would not have an opportunity of applying for their recruitment
in the NRL. Even otherwise, the Recruitment Rules of NRL do not appear to
have any statutory value for the reason that it does not indicate any cut-off date
or any concrete policy decision.
24. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that any
decision of the NRL to restrict the recruitment to Employment Exchange
sponsored candidates even to the extent of 30% of the vacancy would be bad
in law and would be unsustainable.
25. This writ petition, therefore, is allowed with the direction to the NRL
to open up the recruitment whenever it is made to all the eligible candidates
Page No.# 9/9
and not restrict it to Employment Exchange sponsored candidates only.
26. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed off accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
