Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Mr. Chetri has also placed heavy reliance on the decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Md. Maidul Islam and others Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2003 (3) GLR 691 as well as the decision in the case of Utpal Goswami and others Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2015 (2) GLT 1055 to contend that if the basis of cancellation of the selection process is found to be arbitrary and likelihood of bias is noticed, then the Writ Court can issue direction to complete the selection process.

10. By referring to the materials available on record Mr. Chetri further submits that there is sufficient evidence to show that at the relevant point of time, there was no backlog vacancies for SC, ST(P) and ST(H) and therefore, the same could not have been a valid ground for cancellation of the entire selection process. Contending that the petitioners are now over-aged and therefore, have incurred disqualification for appointment in Government jobs, Mr. Chetri has submited that for the ends of justice, the order dated 12.11.2008 cancelling the selection process be set aside by this Court and a direction be issued to the respondents to complete the selection process and to issue appointment orders to the selected candidates.

11. Responding to the above arguments Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam has argued that there is no select list ever prepared under the signatures of all the members of the Selection Board nor was the same ever published. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim any right to be appointed against the vacant posts pursuant to the recruitment process. Mr. Chutia has further argued that the enquiry conducted by the Commissioner, North Assam Division has revealed several anomalies in the selection process which have been highlighted in the enquiry report and therefore, the cancellation of the selection process is completely justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.