Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

WA 139/2017. Gauhati High Court

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberWA 139/2017
Judgement DateMay 15, 2019
CourtGauhati High Court

WA NO.139 of 2017

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. AJI T SI NGH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE MANOJI T BHUYAN

1 5.5.20 17

( Aj it Singh , C.J.)

Mr.AB Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. MK Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms.RB Bora, learned Junior Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr.SS Dey, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.HK Das, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2,3 and 4.

Heard on admission.

This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 24.3.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed WP(C) No. 3048/ 2013 of Respondent No.1 quashing the appointment of appellant on the post of Sheristadar.

The appointment on the post of Sheristadar is made by selection in accordance with the Assam District and Sessions Judges’ Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987. These Rules have been framed by the government in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Appointing Authority under the Rules is the District and Sessions Judge. As per Rule 6(1), the post of Sheristadar is filled up by selection from amongst the persons, who have served continuously as Sheristadar of Additional District and Sessions Judge or as Head Assistant in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, at least 5 years. And as per Rule 16, where the appointing authority is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules may cause undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. On 7.2.2013, post of Sheristadar was advertised. I n the advertisement power to relax qualification of experience was not mentioned. I t appears that only the appellant and respondent No.1 responded to the advertisement and both were called for interview on 5.5.2013. The interview was

Page 1 of 2

conducted by the Selection Committee. And although respondent No.1...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT