Gauhati High Court
Smti Moromi Dutta & Anr vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 21 August, 2017
Author: Nelson Sailo
Bench: Nelson Sailo
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Petition (C) No.929 of 2011
1.Smti Moromi Dutta
Daughter of Sri Ghanakanta Dutta
Resident of village of Kochgaon
PO Maout
District- Jorhat, Assam
2.Sri Haren Gogoi
Son of Sri Tukheswar Gogoi
Resident of Jamurugi
PO Assam Agriculture University
District- Jorhat, Assam
.......Petitioners
-Versus-
1.The State of Assam
Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt.
Public Health Engineering Department
Disput, Guwahati-6 and 3 Ors.
....... Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO For the Petitioner : Mr. Parag J Saikia, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr.PN Goswami, Standing Counsel, : Mr. MR Adhikari, Government Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2017
Date of Judgment : 21.08.2017
Page 1 of 6
JUDGMENT AND ORDER( ORAL)
Heard Mr. Parag J Saikia, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Mr. PN Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel for the PHE Department. Also heard Mr. MR Adhikari, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the PHE Department and the Social Welfare Department respectively.
2. Although the learned Government Advocate Mr. MR Adhikari was asked to obtain instruction as to whether the name of the petitioner No.1 has been included in the select list concerned to proceed with the case but, however, he submits that he is yet to receive such instruction. Considering the issue, the case is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties.
3. The petitioners upon having come across an Advertisement inviting applications from candidates who are physically handicapped for filling up the backlog posts of Grade- III and Grade-IV in various Departments under the Government of Assam submitted their applications. The petitioners belong to the Visually Impaired category. Call letters for the interview was issued to the petitioners on 14.6.2015 (Annexure-2) wherein Roll No. 48 and 11 were assigned to them respectively. After the interview was held, a select list was published (Annexure-3) wherein the name of the petitioner No. 2 was indicated as the first Roll number against the Grade-IV post under the Jorhat WP (C) No. 929 of 2011 Page 2 of 6 district. However, the Roll number of the petitioner No.1 did not find place in the select list. But according to the petitioners, Roll No. 48 has been erroneously shown as Roll No.18 in the select list. Despite the publication of the select list, while similarly other placed candidates have been appointed, the respective authorities having failed to appoint the petitioners have approached this Court by the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Parag J Saikia submits that in fact a Mobile Court was held by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 3.11.2007 (Annexure-4) wherein considering the various discrepancies that cropped up after the selection process held in the year 2005-2006, the Mobile Court directed that the selected candidates should be appointed on the basis of their merit list against the available vacancies in the identified posts. Such appointment should be made until all the eligible candidates are accommodated. The age relaxation of the candidates also was directed. Mr. Parag J Saikia submits that since the petitioners have been selected and considering the direction passed by the Mobile Court, the petitioners have a substantive right to be appointed.
5. Appearing for the PHE Department, Mr. PN Goswami submits that although selection process was initiated in the year 2005-2006 due to various anomalies in the select list, the matter could not be settled. Consequently, vide speaking order dated 7.7.2011 issued by the Social Welfare Department, the WP (C) No. 929 of 2011 Page 3 of 6 validity of the select list prepared in the year 2005-2006 was corrected finally on 19.2.2011 validity of the list was extended up to 31.7.2011. The validity of the select list since then has strictly been observed by the PHE Department. He further submits that although a perusal of the selection list annexed by the writ petitioners contains the Roll number of the petitioner No.2, but however, the petitioner No.1 cannot be presumed to be included in the said list since Roll No.48 is not found in the list and moreover it has not been further substantiated by giving the names of the candidates. He therefore submits that the only option in such circumstance is that the Social Welfare Department should clarify as to whether the Roll numbers appearing therein actually belongs to the two writ petitioners. On such verification and clarification, the department may consider their appointment in terms of the similar order passed in WP (C) No. 4166 of 2014 on 02.06.2015.
6. Mr. MR Adhikari, the learned Government Advocate submits that the Social Welfare Department is the nodal agency to carry out the selection process for appointment of candidates with disabilities in various Departments under the Government of Assam. He submits that since the records pertains to the year 2005-2006, despite all efforts, the Department is still in the process of tracing out the relevant documents so as to find out as to whether the petitioners have been included in the merit list so prepared.
WP (C) No. 929 of 2011 Page 4 of 67. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record.
8. The fact of not being able to produce the relevant records in my considered opinion should not detain this Court from disposing the writ petition. As pointed out by the parties concerned, similar writ petitions have been disposed of by this Court including WP (C) No. 4166 of 2014. The appointment of the petitioners in the instant case pertains to the PHE Department as well and the Social Welfare Department as the nodal agency was supposed to provide the selected candidates for their appointment. Furthermore, it may be noticed that in terms of the speaking order dated 7.7.2011 as pointed out by Mr. PN Goswami, finalization of the select list was only made on 19.2.2011 whereas the writ petition itself was initiated on 17.2.2011. Therefore, although the validity of the select list was extended only upto 31.7.2011, the same cannot preclude the consideration of the writ petitioners in my view. The discrepancy that has been pointed out from the select list at Annexure-2 can very well be verified by the Social Welfare Department in consultation with the PHE. Upon such verification, if it is found that the petitioners were indeed recommended by the Selection Committee, they should very well be considered for their appointment as was extended to the other similarly placed candidates.
9. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Social Welfare Department WP (C) No. 929 of 2011 Page 5 of 6 as well as the PHE Department to verify the selection of the writ petitioners in the recruitment process that was undertaken in the year 2005-2006 and upon such verification, if it is found that the petitioners were indeed recommended, PHE shall accordingly do the needful by appointing the writ petitioners against the appropriate posts. Such process of verification should be initiated by the Department as directed within a period of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, the entire process be completed within 3(three) months thereafter.
10. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed. No cost.
JUDGE Nivedita WP (C) No. 929 of 2011 Page 6 of 6