WP(C) 108/2011. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | WP(C) 108/2011 |
| Judgement Date | August 14, 2020 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
(THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Petition ( C) No.108 of 2011
Sri Prabin Medhi
Son of Nirmal Medhi
Resident of Village Doloichuba District-Morigaon, Assam
…….Petitioner
-Versus-
-
The State of Assam
Represented by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, PWD Roads
Dispur , Guwahati
-
The Executive Engineer, PWD, Morigaon
Rural Road Division, District-Morigaon, Assam Member Secretary of Selection Commitee
-
Md.Amjadul Haque Choudhury
C/ O Md. Rustam Ali
Baillage-Baliganga
PO & PS Bhuragaon District-Morigaon, Assam
……. Respondents
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE NELSON SAI LO
For the Petitioner : Mr. AD Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr.AD Choudhury, Advocate
Mr. A Chakraborthy,Government
Advocate
Date of Hearing :14.08.2017
Date of Judgment :14.08.2017
Page 1 of 6
JUDGMENT AND ORDER( ORAL)
Heard Mr. AD Sharma, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. AD Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D Chakraborthy for the respondent No.3. None appears for the PWD although they are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A Chakraborthy, the learned Government Advocate submits that old cases of the Department are to be handled by the previous counsel. Be that as it may, since the respondents have already filed their affidavit-in-oppostion, the case is taken up for disposal.
-
The case of the writ petitioner is that an Advertisement was floated by respondent No.2 for two post of Junior Assistants (Lower Division Assistants) in which one post was reserved for the ST(H) and the other post for the general category. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 applied for the general category post and pursuant to which they appeared for the written test conducted by the respondent authorities. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 3 appeared for the written test but the petitioner was not called for the Viva-Voce test and subsequently he came to learn that respondent No.3 has been selected and appointed as Junior Assistant. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for publication of the results of the written examination held on 21.11.2010 and publication of the select list. The petitioner has further prayed for restraining the appointment of the respondent No.3.
WP (C) No. 108 of 2011 Page 2 of 6
-
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities as per their advertisement have...
To continue reading
Request your trial