Gauhati High Court
Md. Samsul Hauqe vs The Union Of India & Ors on 17 March, 2017
Author: Manojit Bhuyan
Bench: Manojit Bhuyan
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM &
ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT PETITION(C) 915/2011
Md. Samsul Haque --------- Petitioner
-versus-
The Union of India & Others --------- Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN Advocate for Petitioner :: Mr. P.J. Phukan Advocate for the Respondents :: Mr. U.K.Goswami, SC,Railways Date of Hearing :: 17.03.2017 Date of delivery of Judgment :: 17.03.2017 JUDGMENT & ORDER (M anojit Bhuyan, J)
1. This writ petition is directed against the Order dated 07.05.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application No. 11/2009. The petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Commercial Apprentice Category 51 was rejected, leading to dismissal of the Original Application.
2. We have heard Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned counsel representing the respondent Railways. In terms of the order of this Court dated 08.03.2017, an Officer of the Railways, conversant with the case, was also present today providing necessary assistance.
3. Pursuant to Advertisement dated 12.06.2004, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Commercial Apprentice Category 51 as well as to a post of Traffic Apprentice Category 50. He gave preference for appointment to the former category of post as a candidate belonging to the Page 1 of 2 unreserved category. Consequent upon interview, a Merit List was prepared and having regard to his merit position, he was not selected for appointment. In the present case we are not concerned with the claim for appointment as a Traffic Apprentice Category 50 because the petitioner admittedly was not found fit in the medical examination.
4. As per the order of the Tribunal the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 13 in the Merit List and having regard to 9 (nine) vacancies available under the unreserved category, it was held that there was no infirmity in the selection so made.
5. From the materials on record it transpires that two separate Merit List had been prepared - one for Traffic Apprentice and the other for Commercial Apprentice and the same were taken out from the combined Merit List. In so far as the Merit List of Apprentice Traffic is concerned, the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 13 as against 19 (nineteen) available vacancies under unreserved category. However his case did not fall for consideration as he was found not medically fit. In so far as the Merit List of Commercial Apprentice is concerned, the petitioner's name did not figure at all, having regard to the 9 numbers of available vacancies under the unreserved category. A comparative assessment of the names figuring in the Merit List of Commercial Apprentice with that of the Combined List, it clearly appears that the petitioner did not come within the first nine position against the nine available vacancies under the unreserved category.
6. The records of the case being clear in this respect, we find no ground to grant relief to the petitioner. This writ petition being devoid of merits, stands accordingly dismissed, however without any order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
sds
Page 2 of 2