Gauhati High Court
Prasidha Baruah vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 17 December, 2018
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010226502014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 4076/2014
1:PRASIDHA BARUAH
S/O LT. DHANI RAM BARUAH, VILL. UPAHUPARA, P.O. MANGALDAI, DIST-
DARRANG, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
EDUCATION HIGHER DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GHY-19
3:THE PRINCIPAL
MANGALDAI COLLEGE
MANGALDAI
DIST- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-784125
4:THE GOVERNING BODY
MANGALDAI COLLEGE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
MANGALDAI
DIST- DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-78412
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S HOQUE
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.N CHAKRABORTY
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
Date : 17-12-2018 Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Considering the nature of the dispute and also the fact that this writ petition is pending since the year 2014, the same is taken-up for disposal at the admission stage.
The petitioner is praying for regularisation of his service in the Mangoldoi College in the post of Nigh Chowkider. The case of the petitioner projected in the writ petition is that he was offered a call letter dated 02.07.2002 for interview for the post of Night Chowkider which was to be held on 09.07.2002. After the said interview, he was appointed as Night Chowkider and in this connection, a certificate was said to be issued by the Principal In-charge dated 22.10.2002 which has been annexed as Annexure-2. Apart from these two documents, there are no other documents pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner. Further, there are no pleadings to the effect that the petitioner entered into the service of Night Chowkider in the College after a duly conducted recruitment process. The so called appointment letter annexed with the writ petition is not an appointment letter in the eyes of law but only a certificate said to be issued by the Principal In-charge of the College.
Mr. Hoque submits that apart from these two papers the petitioner is not in possession of any other documents and therefore he is not in a position to annex anything else. However, there is no explanation as to why no pleading to that effect have been made in the writ petition.
On the other hand Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel as well as Mr. C. Goswami, learned counsel for the College Authorities submits that the prayer for regularisation is not in accordance with the settled proportion of law and they rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) , reported in Page No.# 3/3 (2006) 4 SCC 1 more specifically paragraph 53 thereof. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel also submits that there is no post of Night Chowkider in the College and even on that count the question of regularisation will not arise.
After considering the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no case for regularisation is made out and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. However while dismissing the writ petition it is observed that since the petitioner is working for a considerable length of time, as and when a regular process for recruitment to the post of Grade-IV is undertaken the case of the petitioner should be considered by giving weightage to his past services in the College in the said capacity.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant