Gauhati High Court
Sri Ranjit Sarkar @ Topa Sarkar And Anr vs Sri Jaydeb Das And 9 Ors on 18 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010211932018
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/91/2019
1.SRI RANJIT SARKAR @ TOPA SARKAR AND ANR
S/O- LATE BHABANI SARKAR, R/O- MISSION ROAD, P.O.- BIDYA PARA,
DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783301.
2: MD. IFTIKAR HUSSAIN
S/O- AMJED HUSSAIN
R/O- THAKURBARI ROAD WARD NO. 3
P.O. AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM
VERSUS
1.SRI JAYDEB DAS AND 9 ORS.
S/O- LATE SUNIL CHANDRA DAS,
R/O- D.D. ROAD, DHUBRI TOWN UNDER DHUBRI POLICE STATION, DIST.-
DHUBRI, ASSAM.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE ASSAM
KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMAN TRAINING
ASSAM REHABARI GUWAHATI- 08.
5:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT
DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE DHUBRI ASSAM.
6:SRI ABDUL ALIM
S/O- MD. TARIQUE HUSSAIN
R/O- VILL.- SALEKURA P.O.- JANIA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/9
7:SRI GANGA DEKA
S/O- SRI HAREN DEKA
R/O- AGRICULTURE CAMPUS KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22.
8:SRI AJAY KUMAR DEKA
S/O- DINESWAR DEKA
R/O- VILL.- SENAPATI PARA P.O.- BHURARGAORH ASSAM.
9:SRI PRANJAL KUMAR DEORI
S/O- LATE MALEKA DEORI
R/O- VILL.- NAKARI WARD NO. 01
P.O.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR LAKHIMPUR ASSAM.
10:SRI DURGA PRASAD DEORI
S/O- SRI UMAKANTA DEORI
R/O- VILL.- DHUNAGURI DEORI GAON
P.O.- DHUNAGURI DHEMAJI ASSAM
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.J. Saikia, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. M. Nirola,
Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Prasad, Advocate for respondent No.1.
: Mr. P. Saikia, Government Advocate, Assam.
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
18.11.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. M, Nirola, learned Advocate for the appellants; Mr. B.
Prasad, learned Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. P. Saikia, learned
Government Advocate, Assam.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2018 passed in WP(C)
No.8/2011, a learned Single Judge of this Court, on finding that the
appointment of the appellants were made through a process in which
Page No.# 3/9
only the Employment Exchange sponsored candidates were considered,
held the appointments to be not sustainable, notwithstanding the
number of years which had passed by when the matter was brought to
the notice of this Court. As such, the appointments of the appellants
were set aside and the State respondents were given the liberty for filling
up the posts again by calling for advertisement by newspaper
publication, through electronic media and the Employment Exchange
Office but the said process of filling up the two regular vacant posts of
Field Assistants in Dhubri district was directed to be completed within a
period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of
the judgment, referred to above.
3. It was also clarified that in the event of the writ
petitioner/respondent No.1 who had pointed out that though he was
also sponsored by the Employment Exchange but did not get a call
letter, had become over-aged, the State would consider relaxing the
age requirement as against him at the time of fresh selection to the two
vacant posts of Field Assistants under the Crop Insurance Scheme in the
district of Dhubri.
4. It must be noted here that the judgment was put in abeyance
by an order of this Court, which stay order continues till date.
5. The appointments in question were conducted in the year
2010. The process of appointment was initiated at the behest of the
Director of Agriculture, Assam to fill up 7(seven) posts of Field Assistants
under the Crop Insurance Scheme across various districts including 2(two)
Page No.# 4/9
posts specifically for the Dhubri district. The process of recruitment had
the Government approval and also financial concurrence. However, the
names of the candidates to be selected were requisitioned exclusively
from the District Employment Exchange as per the district-wise vacancy
allocation.
For the district of Dhubri, 50 candidates were sponsored by the
local Employment Exchange, who were issued interview call letters.
Interviews were held in which the appellants were selected. One of them
falls in Unreserved Category, whereas the other is a person of Scheduled
caste (SC) category. The appellants were, thus, appointed and they
joined the service in August, 2010.
As noted above, they have been serving satisfactorily since
then.
6. A writ petition, bearing WP(C) No.8/2011 was filed by an
unsuccessful candidate from Dhubri district, challenging the entire
selection process as arbitrary and non-transparent. He has been
arraigned as respondent No.1 in the present appeal.
7. Before the Writ Court, he had alleged that no public
advertisement was issued and the call letters were only selectively sent.
The contention was based on the fact that despite his name having
been sponsored by the local Employment Exchange, he did not receive
the call letter for interview.
8. Certain other grounds were also raised, viz., that by the time
the recruitments were made, the financial concurrence of the Scheme
Page No.# 5/9
had also lapsed, and that one of the appellants was accused in a
criminal case [he has since been acquitted].
9. The respondents/State before the Writ Court contended that
as per the vacancy, district-wise names were requisitioned from the
concerned Employment Exchanges. For the district of Dhubri, 50
candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, all of whom
were issued interview call letters but only 31 of them actually appeared
for interview.
10. The learned Single Judge, after examining the records of the
recruitment, found that it was only administratively decided to issue 50
call letters against the 50 sponsored candidates under the Dhubri district,
which did not evince that all 50 sponsored candidates were sent the
interview letters; the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 being one of them.
11. The learned Single Judge thus concluded that no individual
call letter had been issued to writ petitioner/respondent No.1 and there
was nothing on record to show that all sponsored candidates were
individually sent call letters. However, that issue was left aside with the
observation that every person including the writ petitioner was entitled to
be considered for being appointed.
12. The learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Orissa -Vs- Mamata Mahanty :: (2011) 3
SCC 436, set aside the appointment of the appellants for their
appointments having been made under a process which was not
properly advertised and was based only on the requisition and
Page No.# 6/9
consequent sponsoring of the names by the concerned Employment
Exchange.
13. So far as the question of law is concerned, it would be
necessary here to state that in the past, consideration of Employment
Exchange sponsored candidates for recruitment was found to be a
process which would, to a large extent avoid the menace of nepotism
and corruption in public employment. However, later, a reasoning was
adopted that it was not necessary that all eligible candidates for a
particular post would be registered with the Employment Exchange.
14. The object of recruitment to any service or post is to secure the
most suitable person who answers the demands as per the requirements
of the job. In the case of public employment, it is necessary to eliminate
arbitrariness and favouritism and introduce uniformity of standard and
orderliness in the matter of employment. There has to be an element of
procedural fairness in recruitment.
15. The earlier view that if Employment Exchanges do not reach
everywhere, so would be the situation with other methods of advertising
the vacancy, was later abandoned.
16. In Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District,
Andhra -Vs- K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao :: (1996) 6 SCC 216, a three
Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, while reiterating that requisitioning
authority/establishment must send intimation to the Employment
Exchange and the latter should sponsor the names of the candidates,
observed that to be more fair, in addition to such requisitioning through
Page No.# 7/9
Employment Exchange, appropriate department or undertaking or
establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers
having wider circulation and also display the same on their office notice
boards or announce on radio, television and employment news-bulletins
and, then, consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied.
It was held that if this process is adopted, fair play would be
subserved. The principle of equality of opportunity in the matter of
employment would be available to all eligible candidates.
17. The same principle was reiterated in Arun Kumar Nayak -Vs-
Union of India & Ors. :: (2006) 8 SCC 111 and in State of Bihar -Vs-
Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. :: (2009) 5 SCC 65.
18. The law, therefore, as it stands today, is that notwithstanding
the existence of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of
Vacancies) Act, 1959, which casts a duty on the employer in every
establishment in public sector in the State or a part thereof to notify every
vacancy to the Employment Exchange before filling up the same, the
vacancies have to be advertised and the Employment Exchange
notification shall not be the exclusive mode of recruitment. Respective
Employment Exchange may be intimated about the vacancy position
but it cannot be used as an exclusive source for recruitment.
19. What the judgments of the Supreme Court specify is that open
advertisement is mandatory in any kind of public employment. In some of
the cases, the Supreme Court has gone on to state that if the
recruitment has been made only from amongst the Employment
Page No.# 8/9
Exchange sponsored candidates, even their long service are liable to be
struck down.
20. So far for the policy of recruitment and its execution.
A peculiar situation has arisen in the present case, where the
writ petitioner/respondent No.1 has made an upfront statement before
this Court that he had never filed any writ petition and that his name was
misused. Somebody else had impersonated him and had filed the writ
petition challenging the appointment process.
21. Mr. B. Prasad, learned Advocate for the writ
petitioner/respondent No.1 submits that his client does not want to
contest this case as he was not the writ petitioner.
22. It would only be fair to state here that his statement was not
accepted on its face value and an enquiry was directed to be
conducted by the Superintendent of Police to find out whether there was
any impersonation. The report on record indicates that the signature of
respondent No.1/writ petitioner obtained during the enquiry and the
signature on the writ petition and vakalatnama are but the same.
Nonetheless, leaving that issue aside, in the present case, we
have taken into account the clear admission of respondent No.1 that he
does not want to contest this case as a respondent.
23. We are at a loss to understand why such an exercise was
conducted and by whom, if not by respondent No.1, for unsettling the
appointments which were made nearly 15 years ago. There is no
Page No.# 9/9
gainsaying that the appointments of the appellants were made only on
the basis of their names being sponsored by the concerned Employment
Exchange. But considering the long years of service about which no
complaint has been made and there is at present no objection with
respect to such appointments, we are not inclined to unsettle their
appointments.
24. Though we approve the reasoning of the learned Single Judge
and his exposition of law on the subject, but looking at the entire issue
with a pragmatic view and finding that there is no real objection to the
appointments of the appellants, on which post they have been
continuing till today, we set aside the operative portion of the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and direct that the
appointments of the appellants be held to be valid in the eyes of law.
However, we caution that in future, any recruitment exercise
ought to be carried out after fully advertising the vacancy position and
the eligibility requirements.
25. The writ appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
