Gauhati High Court
Kamkholun Lhoujen vs The Gauhati High Court And 4 Ors on 19 June, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010158922024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4004/2024
KAMKHOLUN LHOUJEN
SON OF PAOSEI LHOUJEN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HOUSE NO. 14,
MOULKHANG GAON, PO- DILAI, PS- DILAI, DIST-KARBI ANGLONG,
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI HIGH COURT,
DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2:THE SECRETARY
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:THE SELECTION BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
GOLAGHAT
PS- GOLAGHAT
PIN- 785702
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
4:THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
GOLAGHAT
PO- GOLAGHAT
PS- GOLAGHAT
Page No.# 2/7
PIN- 785702
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
5:SRI BISON SINGNAR
SON OF BABU SINGNARM PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-
SERLONJON
PO- DIPHU
PS- DIPHU
PIN- 782460
DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM PRESENT ADDRESS- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE
GOLAGHAT
PO- GOLAGHAT
PS- GOLAGHAT
PIN- 785702
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. R. Bora, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents : Ms. S. Sarma, SC, GHC
Mr. T. R. Gogoi, Govt. Advocate
Ms. B. Choudhury, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2025
Date of Judgment :19.06.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. R. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner. Ms. S. Sarma, the learned counsel appears on
behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4; Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the
Page No.# 3/7
learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 and
Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
respondent Nos.5.
2. The petitioner has challenged the selection of the
respondent No.5 vide the Select List published on 01.07.2024
and the subsequent appointment of the respondent No.5 to the
post of the Office Peon in the Office of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Golaghat.
3. The facts involved in the instant proceedings is that on
14.08.2023, the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat
had issued an advertisement calling from eligible candidates for
filling up of two posts of Office Peon. One post was reserved for
Schedule Caste category and the other post was reserved for
Schedule Tribe (Hills) category. In the said advertisement, the
Selection Process was duly mentioned. The said Selection
Process as mentioned in the said advertisement is reproduced
herein below:-
Selection Process
Stage Description
Common Written Test of 50 (Fifty) marks
Duration: 01 (One) Hour.
Stage 1
Syllabus: (i) English, (ii) General Knowledge & (iii)
Assamese
Page No.# 4/7
Stage 2 Interview/viva-voce (20 Marks).
4. From the above quoted Selection Process, it is seen that
Stage 1 pertains to a common written test of 50 marks and the
Stage 2 pertains to an interview/viva-voce of 20 marks. Pursuant
thereto, the selection was conducted.
5. It is relevant to take note of that the present proceedings
only pertains to the selection so made in respect to the post of
the Office Peon reserved for Schedule Tribe (Hills) category and
not in respect to the Schedule Caste category.
6. In the written test which was held on 25.02.2024, it is seen
that the petitioner herein obtained 32 marks out of 50 marks
whereas the respondent No.5 only obtained 12 marks out of 50
marks. Surprisingly the viva-voce interview, which was held on
30.06.2024 was held of 60 marks thereby giving 20 marks
against each interviewer. The petitioner was allotted 51 marks
out of 60 marks whereas the respondent No.5 was allotted 56
marks. Solely on the basis of this viva-voce/interview, the
respondent No.5 was selected vide the Select List dated
01.07.2024 impugned in the instant proceedings and the
petitioner herein was put in the Waiting List.
7. The petitioner is aggrieved that the respondent authorities
have changed the rules of the game after the advertisement in
Page No.# 5/7
as much as when the interview/viva-voce test was only to be
held for 20 marks, the Selection Committee on their own after
the written test results had made it 60 marks thereby 20 marks
each for each interviewer. It was alleged that such a procedure
was adopted only to accommodate the respondent No.5.
8. Ms. S. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Gauhati High Court submitted that the written test was only
a screening test and thereupon on the basis of the viva-voce
examination, the candidates were selected.
9. Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent No.5 supported the stand of the Gauhati High
Court as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition.
10. This Court has duly perused the materials on record and
heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. It
shocks and surprises this Court in the manner in which the
Selection Committee changed the rules of the game after the
written test as is the admitted stand in the affidavit-in-opposition
filed by the respondent No.4. The advertisement clearly
stipulated the Selection Process to be of 50 marks in the written
test and 20 marks for the interview. It is seen that in the written
test, the petitioner herein obtained 32 marks out of 50 marks
whereas the respondent No.5 only obtained 12 marks. The stand
Page No.# 6/7
so taken by the respondents in the affidavit that the written test
was a screening test, in the opinion of this Court, is contrary to
the advertisement which has been issued and it seems to be an
afterthought in order to accommodate the respondent No.5.
Further to that, it is seen that the respondent No.5 had been
selected solely on the basis of the interview which is also not
permissible as per the settled principles of law.
11. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this
Court that the respondent authorities, more particularly the
respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 have violated the mandate of Article 14
and Article 16 of the Constitution in selecting the respondent
No.5 to the post of the Office Peon.
12. Under such circumstances, this Court interferes with the
Select List dated 01.07.2024 in so far as the post of the Office
Peon in the Schedule Tribe (Hills) category. The appointment of
the respondent No.5 is also set aside and quashed.
13. This Court however observes that the respondent
authorities shall not recover from the respondent No.5 any
amount during the period when the respondent No.5 had
rendered his service in view of setting aside his appointment
order.
14. The respondent authorities are directed to proceed with a
Page No.# 7/7
fresh selection to the post of Office Peon in the category of
Schedule Tribe (Hills) by following the due mandate of law.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
