Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 12 March, 2021

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010131402020




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

                           Case No. : WP(C)/3912/2020

         ABDUL MANNAF AND 3 ORS.
         S/O- ASHOB ALI, VILL- TIAMARI PART-2, P.O. TIAMARI, P.S. GAURIPUR, IN
         THE DIST. OF DHUBRI, ASSAM

         2: BIBHASH DEV
          S/O- BISHNU PADA DEV
          R/O- LAKSHMI SAHAR WARD NO. 14
          P.O. LAKSHMI SAHAR
          IN THE DIST. OF HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM

         3: UMMEY KULSUM
          D/O- GULZAR HUSSAIN
          R/O- VILL- LAKHIPUR
          P.O. LAKHIPUR
          IN THE DIST. OF GOALPARA
         ASSAM

         4: SAIFUL ISLAM
          S/O- ALI HUSSAIN AHMED
          R/O- VILL- SOWARI POITARI
          P.O. JOYBHUWS
          IN THE DIST. OF GOALPARA
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
         TO BE REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF
         INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, DISPUR, GHY-6

         2:THE COMM. OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
          UDYOGBHAWAN
         AMUNIMAIDAN
                                                                                  Page No.# 2/3

             GHY-21
             ASSAM

            3:THE CHAIRMAN OF STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD
            ASSAM
             REHABARI
             GHY-0

Advocate for the Petitioner   : DR. B AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                          ORDER

Date : 12-03-2021 Heard Mr. A.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that in pursuant to an Advertisement dated 13.02.2016 calling for filling up 93 vacant posts of Extension Officer (Industries), the petitioners took part in the written test held on 28.02.2016. Without the respondents completing the selection process, the selection process has been cancelled on 09.09.2017 and a fresh advertisement for filing up the said posts has been issued on 10.08.2020.

The petitioners' counsel submits that the cancellation of the selection process held in pursuant to the Advertisement dated 13.02.2016 is arbitrary and unjustified. Accordingly, the same should be cancelled and a direction should be issued to the respondents to complete the selection process made in pursuant to the Advertisement dated 13.02.2016.

Mr. A. Kalita, learned counsel for the State respondents, on the other hand submits that though the selection process held in pursuant to the Advertisement dated 13.02.2016 was cancelled on 09.09.2017, the petitioners have made a challenge to the same only by way of this writ petition, which has been filed in September, 2020. As more than 3 (three) years have elapsed from the cancellation of the earlier selection process, the present writ petition suffers from delay and laches.

Page No.# 3/3 I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

It is seen that though the earlier selection process had been cancelled on 09.09.2017, the petitioners, despite knowing that the same had been cancelled did not make any challenge against the said cancellation order. It is only when the new advertisement was issued for filling up the vacant post of Extension Officer (Industries), vide Advertisement dated 10.08.2020, that the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this writ petition on 22.09.2020. It is settled law that even a selected person does not have any indefeasible right to be appointed to a vacant post. In the present case, the selection process has not been completed and there is no select list, even though the petitioners had undertaken the written test on 28.02.2016. The selection process was cancelled on 09.09.2017 as can be seen from Annexure-3 of the writ petition, which is the cancellation order. However, no challenge had been made to the same for more than 3 (three) years. It was only when the new Advertisement dated 10.08.2020 was issued, that the petitioners have made a challenge to the cancellation order dated 09.09.2017 and the new Advertisement dated 10.08.2020.

In view of the fact that the present writ petition suffers from delay and laches, this Court is not inclined to exercise it's discretion in the present case.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant