Harekrishna Dutta vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4090 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Harekrishna Dutta vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 13 March, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                 Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010018942015




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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/4688/2015

         HAREKRISHNA DUTTA
         S/O LT. DASO RAM DUTTA VILL- KHETRAPARA, P.O. MAKHIBAHA P.S.
         TIHU, DIST.NALBARI, ASSAM.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, ASSAM.

         2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

          JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI- 781006
          ASSAM.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          FINANCE DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006
         ASSAM.

         4:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

          GAUHATI HIGH COURT
          GUWAHATI- 781001
          ASSAM.

         5:THE REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION -CUM-IN-CHARGE

          CENTRALISED RECRUITMENT
          GAUHATI HIGH COURT
                                                                    Page No.# 2/6

          GUWAHATI - 781001
          ASSAM.

          6:PRESIDING OFFICER/MEMBER
           MACT
           NALBARI
          ASSAM




                                  BEFORE
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH


    Advocates for the petitioner(s)    :      Mr. R Majumdar


   Advocates for the respondent(s)    :       Ms. S Sarma

Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court Mr. P Nayak Standing Counsel, Finance Department

Date of hearing & judgment : 13.03.2025

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. R Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. S Sarma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. P Nayak, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.3.

Page No.# 3/6

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not selecting the petitioner as well as seeking a mandamus that the petitioner should be selected in terms with the judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 passed by this Court. In addition to that, the petitioner has also assailed the communication dated 17.07.2015 as well as the list of candidates dated 29.07.2015.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant petition is that on 13.12.2011, the respondent No.6 had issued an advertisement inviting applications for various numbers of vacancies. The vacancy which is relevant for the purpose of the present case is for the post of Copyist which is a single post.

4. It has been mentioned in the said advertisement that candidates having experience in judicial work or working in the judicial establishment in the State of Assam with requisite qualification shall be given due weightage. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the said advertisement and seeking regularization. This Court vide the order dated 23.09.2013 in WP(C)No.1537/2012 did not issue any direction for regularization of the petitioner, but rather taking into account that the petitioner had applied in pursuance to the advertisement had observed that the respondent No.6 shall give due weightage to the experience of the petitioner while considering his case in the ongoing selection process.

5. Subsequent thereto, it is seen that on 13.07.2013, a written test was held Page No.# 4/6

amongst the various candidates for the post of Copyist. It is seen from the records and more particularly, from the affidavit so filed by the respondent No.6, that on 14.05.2015, the Selection Committee had passed a resolution. In the said resolution, it was mentioned that a written test was conducted and the cut off mark was decided at 50% for the Copyist. Accordingly, 7 numbers of candidates were qualified in the written test and they were selected for the viva voce test. The petitioner admittedly did not secure the 50% cut off marks.

6. In view of the order passed in WP(C)No.1537/2012, the Selection Committee thought it proper that before rejecting the case of the petitioner as he could not clear the written test, they would seek an opinion from the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side. Upon seeking such opinion, the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side had opined vide the communication dated 17.07.2015 that as the petitioner had failed to secure the minimum cut off mark for the written test, the due weightage cannot be given as he had failed to pass the basic efficiency test.

7. It is further seen that subsequent thereto, those persons who had cleared the written test were notified vide notice dated 29.07.2015 which was also put to challenge. Be that as it may, the persons whose names were notified vide the notice dated 29.07.2015 were not made parties to the instant proceedings.

8. It is seen that initially this Court while issuing notice passed an order of stay to the selection process. The said order was vacated by the order dated 08.01.2018.

Page No.# 5/6

9. The respondents have also filed their affidavit and in the said affidavit their categorical stand taken is that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum 50% of the qualifying marks in the written test, and, as such, he could not be considered or given due weightage, inspite of the order being passed by this Court. It was also mentioned in the said affidavit that they had also sought for confirmation from the Gauhati High Court on the administrative side and in pursuance thereto, the communication dated 17.07.2015 was issued.

10. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record.

11. At the outset the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities submitted that the instant writ petition cannot be proceeded with taking into account that pursuant to the vacation of the stay order vide order dated 08.01.2018 one of the candidates whose name appeared in the Notice dated 29.07.2015 was appointed and the selected candidate is not a party to the proceedings.

12. This Court had also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in that regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in the order dated 08.01.2018, there is a mention that any appointment so made shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

13. This Court, however, finds it relevant to take note of that in pursuance to Page No.# 6/6

the selection proceedings, due appointment has been made. Inspite of that, if there is no challenge to the appointment order of the person, who had been duly appointed and if any order is being passed in the instant proceedings, it would result in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner herein ought to have exercised due diligence during the passage of the last seven years to have impleaded the selected candidate, inasmuch as, without hearing the selected candidate, this Court cannot set aside his appointment or pass any other order which would impact the appointment of the selected candidate.

14. Consequently, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for exercising the writ jurisdiction, for which, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant