Gauhati High Court
Jehirul Islam vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 12 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010042842019
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1455/2019
JEHIRUL ISLAM
S/O. MD. AMZED ALI, R/O. VILLAGE- NO. 1 KARIGAON, P.O.
BARUAHPATHAN, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY OF FOOD
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT.
ASSAM
BHANGAGHAR
GUWAHATI-05.
3:THE COMMISSIONER OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ASSAM
LATAKATA
BASISTHA
GUWAHATI-29.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF FOOD
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT.
ASSAM
BHANGAGHAR
GUWAHATI-05.
5:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
UZANBAZAR
GUWAHATI-01
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, MS J SAIKIA,MS N NATH
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FCSCA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 12-11-2025 Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the State/ respondent.
2. The petitioner has instituted the present proceeding praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to appoint him against a post Sub-Inspector (SI) in the department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs against the backlog vacancies identified for visually impaired or any other suitable vacancy.
3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner had participated in the special recruitment exercise undertaken for Persons with Disability (PwD) in the year 2005-06. The petitioner, as projected in the writ petition was selected for appointment against the vacant post identified for persons with orthopedic handicap in the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department. The said appointment, however, could not materialize on account of the fact that the said post was found to be not vacant. The petitioner, thereafter, did not pursue the matter till the year 2017. The petitioner on 28-02-2017 approached the authorities through the "All Assam Disabled Persons Association" by submitting a representation praying for consideration of his case for appointment against the post of SI in the department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs. The said appointment not Page No.# 3/5 having materialized, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.
5. The petitioner was selected for appointment against a Gr-III post in pursuance to a special recruitment undertaken for recruiting persons with disability for their appointment against identified vacant post, available in various departments of the Government of Assam in the year 2005-06. The petitioner on his such selection came to be recommended by the Director, Social Welfare Department, Assam -cum- State Level Committee (SLC) for appointment against the backlog vacancy available in the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary department. The said recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by reflecting him to be a person suffering from orthopedic disability. The said appointment, however, did not materialize and it is seen that the petitioner had not pursued the matter thereafter.
6. In the year 2017, i.e. after a lapse of around 11 years, the petitioner had through his association preferred a representation before the Joint Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Dispur, for consideration of his case for appointment as SI in the department in pursuance to his selection in the recruitment exercise held in the year 2005-06. The materials brought on record reveals that 02 (two) posts of SI were reserved for persons with orthopedic handicap in the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department. The said 02 (two) vacancies has been found to have been already filled up by appointing persons from the same recruitment process, under which the petitioner claims appointment. What is to be noted in the present proceeding is that there was no Page No.# 4/5 recommendation made by the respondent authorities for consideration of the case of the petitioner, herein, against the post of SI. The recommendation that was made in respect of the petitioner was for his appointment against a backlog vacancy in the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary department. However, the said appointment had not materialized on account of the fact that there being no vacant post for the purpose. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected himself to be a person with orthopedic disability as well as to be person with visual impairment.
7. The prayer made in the writ petition, being relevant, is extracted here-in-below:
"A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appointment of the Petitioner in the post of Sub-Inspector, in the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs against the backlog vacancy for visually impaired or in any other suitable vacancy."
8. A perusal of the said prayer would reveal that the petitioner has prayed for his appointment against a backlog meant for visually impaired. On a query being by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner is actually an orthopedic handicapped person.
9. In view of the above discussions and there being no recommendation made in favour of the petitioner, by the authorities, for his appointment against a backlog vacancy identified for Persons with Disability in the Department of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs and the representation dated 28-02-2017 having been made after a period of around 11 years from the date of selection of the petitioner for such appointment in the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was not vigilant in pursuing his claim and accordingly no right of the petitioner Page No.# 5/5 can be held to have infringed in the matter on his non-appointment against the post of SI in the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department.
10. Accordingly for the reasons assigned, hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the claim as made by the petitioner, in the present proceedings, would not mandate acceptance.
11. In view of the above discussions the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same accordingly stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant