WP(C) 6581/2016. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | WP(C) 6581/2016 |
| 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 )
W P( C) No.65 81 of 201 6
Md. Mofidul I slam,
Son of Md. Muzafor Ali,
Resident of Azad Nagar,
P.O.-Choto Haibar (Nagaon),
P.S. – Nagaon Sadar, Dist-Nagaon, Assam, PI N-782003
- Ver su s-
(1) The State of Assam,
Represented by the Commissioner
and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department, Dispur, Ghy-6
(2) The Director Sainik Welfare Board,
Assam, Lachit Nagar, Ghy-7
(3) The Chairman, Selection Committee
For selection and appointment of Ex-Servicemen (Army, Navy and Air Force) under
PI F Scheme of Assam Police Boarder Organisation, Dispur, Ghy-6
. … Responden t s
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE NELSON SAI LO
For the Petitioners: Mr. A.I . Uddin …… Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. A. Chakraborty ...... G.A. Assam.
WP(C) No.6581 of 2016
. … Pet it ion er
Date of Hearing : 10th August, 2017 Date of Judgement : 14th August, 2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( CAV)
Heard Mr. A.I . Uddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned Government Advocate, Assam, for all the respondents.
2] The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that the respondent No.3 issued an advertisement notifying Ex-servicemen from the Army, Navy and Air Force for filling up of all together 391 vacant posts under the PI F Scheme of the Government of I ndia. The posts advertised included 4 posts of I nspector, 148 posts of Sub-I nspector, 120 posts of Head Constable and 119 posts of Constable.
3] The petitioner being eligible and qualified for the posts of I nspector and Sub-I nspector participated in the process of selection for appointment of the said posts. The combined written test of 50 marks for selection of I nspector and Sub-I nspector posts amongst other was conducted. The qualifying marks was fixed at 30% i.e. 15 out of 50 marks and the respondent authority published the merit list on 20.10.2016 (Annexure-4), whereby the petitioner was shown to have secured
36.5 marks out of total 50 marks. As per the merit list, the petitioner and another person secured the second highest marks in the written test. However, in the final select list (Annexure-5), the name of the petitioner did not find place although persons who had secured less marks than the petitioner appeared to be selected as per the merit list. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
4] Mr. A.I . Uddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial