Gauhati High Court
Munin Chandra Das vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 10 September, 2019
Author: Ujjal Bhuyan
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010130172019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 3909/2019
1:MUNIN CHANDRA DAS
S/O LT. KANAK CHANDRA DAS, VILL. BETANA, P.S. BARPETA, P.O.
SARUTAPA, DIST.-BARPETA, ASSAM, MOBILE NO.-9613285655
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
DEPTT. OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GUWAHATI-
781005, ASSAM
2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
PERSONNEL (A)
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781019
3:THE DIRECTOR
FOOD
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM
GUWAHATI-781019
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K AGARWALA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/4
WP(C) 3935/2019
1:MRIDUPABAN CHOUDHURY
S.O- SRI NIKUNJA CHOUDHURY
VILL- BHAWANIPUR- HARIPUR
P.S- BARPETA
P.O- BHAWANIPUR
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
DEPTT OF FOOD
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM
2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
PERSONNEL (A)
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781019
3:THE DIRECTOR
FOOD
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT
GOVT OF ASSAM
GUWAHATI- 781019
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R K AGARWALA
Advocate for the Respondent : GA
ASSAM
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
ORDER
Date : 10-09-2019 Heard Mr. RK Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D Nath, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondents.
Matter relates to selection and appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Assam.
Director of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumers Affairs had issued advertisement on 29.01.2002 for filling up 145 numbers of vacancies in the post of Sub-Inspector. Because of intervening litigations and other related developments, which need not be gone into in this proceeding, there was delay in the selection process.
Be that as it may, the scheme of selection envisaged 150 marks for written test and 50 marks for interview; total 200.
Both the petitioners responded to the advertisement, petitioner in WP(C) No.3909/2019 belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC) and the other petitioner in WP(C) No.3935/2019 belonging to Un-Reserved (UR) category. Results were declared on 21.06.2012; a total of 130 candidates were shown as selected. Petitioners were not included in the select list.
Petitioners sought for certain information from the Directorate under the Right to Information Act, 2005, including copies of the answers scripts. Be it stated that the written examination were structured on objective type question-answers on OMR pattern. Petitioners were informed that since the matter was sub-judiced before this Court, information sought for could not be furnished. Ultimately, the information was furnished on 01.03.2019. While the first petitioner noticed that eight of the answers given by him were erroneously treated as wrong answers, the second petitioner noticed that in all 13 questions answered by him were marked as wrong which answers were infact correct. It is contended that had the questions been properly evaluated, both the petitioners would have been selected.
Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order of this Court Page No.# 4/4 dated 06.09.2018, passed in WP(C) No.523/2017 ( Abdul Hakim Vs. State of Assam ) and contends that in an identical case, this Court had directed that the answers script of the said petitioner pertaining to 18 questions should be scrutinized by an independent expert examiner to be appointed by the respondents and depending upon the outcome of such scrutiny, to take consequential steps. He, therefore, submits that similar order may be passed in the case of the present petitioners as well.
It is noticed that the aforesaid order dated 06.09.2018 was passed by this Court considering directions issued on 16.05.2015 and 22.06.2016 in WP(C) No.2220/2016.
On the other hand, Mr. Nath has sought for time to file affidavit.
Let affidavit or instructions be placed before the Court by the next date.
List after two weeks on 24.09.2019.
JUDGE Biplab Comparing Assistant