Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 4 June, 2025
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010093282024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./152/2024
MUSTAFA ALI AHMED AND ANR
S/O LATE PHUKAN ALI,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 30, CHANDMARI, MILANPUR NEAR OLD
MOSQUE NO. 1, KAMRUP M ASSAM 781021
2: SRI ASHOK DEV CHOUDHURY
S/O LATE BHABESH CHANDRA DEV CHOUDHURY
RESIDENT OF RUKMINAGAR
DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP M ASSAM 78100
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DISPUR GUWAHATI
781006
3:THE SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PERSONAL (B) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
5:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND HOFF
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/7
PANJABARI
GUWAHATI 781037
6:THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
KHANAPARA
JAWAHARNAGAR
GUWAHATI 781022
7:KUSHAL KONWAR DEKA
S/O- LT. LOKNATH DEKA
ZOO NARENGI ROAD
NO. 2 MATGHARIA
P.O. AND P.S. NOONMATI
PIN- 781020
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
8:SAHADAT ALI
S/O LATE MAHIM UDDIN AHMED
RESIDENT OF 29 LNB PATH
HATIGAON
PO AND PS HATIGAON
DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 78103
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY, MS N MAHANTA,N GAUTAM,MR. D J
DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, MR. M SARMA(R-7,8),MR P BHARDWAJ (R-
7,8),SC, APSC,GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 04-06-2025
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned
counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel,
Forest Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Ms. P. Sarma,
Page No.# 3/7
learned standing counsel, APSC appearing for the respondent No. 6. Mr. A. Chakraborty,
learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 whereas M. Sharma, learned
counsel has appeared on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
This review petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 09-04-2024
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1148/2021 whereby, certain observations were made
which, according to the review petitioners, are not only incorrect on the face of the record
but the same also tend to prejudice the interest of the petitioners. Hence, this review
petition.
It is the case of the review petitioners that although they were duly selected by the
Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) and their names had been included in the select
list dated 20-06-1989, yet, on the basis of an incorrect projection made by the learned
departmental counsel, this Court had proceeded on an erroneous basis that the review
petitioners were never selected by the APSC and therefore, they were not entitled to the
benefit of higher seniority by virtue of their ranking in the merit list of candidates who had
successfully completed the Forest Training course conducted by the concerned Forest
College. It is also the case of the review petitioners that although the OM dated 11-02-
2020 was actually kept in abeyance by the subsequent OM, yet, the said aspect of the
matter had escaped the notice of the Court, as a result of which, a direction had been
issued in paragraph 15 of the judgment dated 09-04-2024 for fixing the inter-se seniority
of the 1989-91 batch of Forest Rangers by following the mandate of OM dated 11-02-
2020. As such, submits Mr. Choudhury, the impugned judgment and order dated 09-04-
2024 calls for review.
Page No.# 4/7
Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the review petitioners has argued that it is
not a correct finding of fact that the review petitioners were never selected by the APSC.
He submits that despite having been selected by the APSC, it is on account of operation
of the reservation roster that the names of the review petitioners did not feature in the
final list of 18 selected candidates as notified by the Govt. of Assam on 28-07-1989.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the review petitioners were never selected by the APSC.
On the question of determination of inter-se seniority of the Forest Rangers of the
1989-91 batch, Mr. Choudhury submits that save and except merit position of the
successful candidates who had participated in the training conducted by the Forest
Training College no other criteria would be applicable for fixing the inter-se seniority of
the officers. Under such circumstances, submits Mr. Choudhury, the impugned order
deserves to be recalled and the writ petition heard afresh on merit.
By inviting the attention of this Court to the observations made in paragraph 13 of
the judgment and order dated 09-04-2024 whereby, this Court had recorded a concession
made by the petitioners' counsel portraying that if no adverse order is passed against his
clients then he would have no objection to the submission of the learned departmental
counsel, Mr. Choudhury submits that such a concession was never made by the learned
counsel for the review petitioners before the Court. However, in view of such observation
made in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the review petitioners would now be precluded
from preferring an appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment and order
dated 09-04-2024.
Responding to the above, Mr. Gogoi, learned departmental counsel has argued that
Page No.# 5/7
the reflections made in the impugned judgment is based on what had transpired in the
Court proceeding during the course of hearing of the case and the submission made on
behalf of the department were strictly based on record. He has, however, fairly admitted
that the OM dated 11-02-2020 has been kept in abeyance by the subsequent OM dated
11-07-2020. It is also the stand of the learned departmental counsel that the inter-se
seniority of ACF's pertaining to 1989-91 batch of Forest Rangers, can be finalised after the
service rules, which are under examination by the APSC, are notified by the Government.
Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 & 8, on the
other hand, submits that this Court had passed the impugned judgment and order dated
09-04-2024 after a threadbare analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case as well
as the projections made before the Court by the respective parties. Therefore, there is no
scope of reviewing the judgment and order dated 09-04-2024.
After going through the materials available on record and after considering the
submission made at the Bar, this Court appreciates the contention of Mr. Choudhury that
notwithstanding the fact that the names of his clients were not included in the final list of
18 selected stipendiary Forest Rangers as notified on 28-07-1989, yet, their seniority in
the ultimate analysis would have to be determined as per the ranking of the candidates in
order of merit as per the result published by the Forest Training College and not on the
basis of the APSC ranking. However, embarking upon an exercise for adjudication of the
said aspect of the matter at this stage would amount to re-hearing of the writ petition on
merit, which exercise would not be permissible in a review petition.
Insofar as the observations made in paragraph 15 of the judgment is concerned,
Page No.# 6/7
this Court is of the opinion that the error pointed out herein is not of much significance. If
the OM dated 11-02-2020 is not in force, the departmental authorities would naturally be
at liberty to rely and refer to the Rules, standing circulars and OMs which are in force
while determining the inter-se seniority of the candidates. This is more so, in view of the
submission made by Mr. Gogoi that the inter-se seniority of the Forest Rangers of 1989-91
batch can be determined as per service rules which is likely to be notified soon. The
matter stands clarified accordingly.
Insofar as the objection raised by the review petitioners pertaining to the
concession made by the petitioners counsel, as reflected in paragraph 13, by contending
that such observation recorded by the Court is coming in the way of the review
petitioners in preferring an appeal, it is hereby clarified that such observations were
apparently based on the perception of the Court arrived at on the basis of the arguments
addressed by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of hearing of the writ
petition and therefore, the same would not, in any manner, come in the way of the review
petitioners in preferring an appeal against the judgment and order dated 09-04-2024, if
so advised.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claims
and counter-claims of the parties, this Review Petition is being disposed of by observing
that there is no sufficient cause for this Court for reviewing the judgment and order dated
09-04-2024.
The review petitioners would be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy, as may
be permissible under the law, if so advised.
Page No.# 7/7
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
