WP(C) 2616/2016. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberWP(C) 2616/2016
Judgement DateMarch 01, 2021
CourtGauhati High Court

I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT

( THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MI ZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH )

WP( C) 2616/ 2016

Dr. Neelutpal Bora,

S/ o. Late Dr. Phani Dhar Bora,

Resident of House No.5, Gangadhar Mansion, Bishnu Rabha Nagar, Noonmati,

Guwahati-20.

………..Pet it ion er

-Ver su s-

  1. The State of Assam, represented by the Principal

    Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 & 7 others.

    ……….Respon den t s

    For the Appellant : Mr. A.C. Borbora, Sr. Adv.

    Mr. M. Smit, Adv

    For the Respondents : Mr. D. Upamanyu, SC. Heath Deptt.

    Mr. B. Sinha, SC, APSC,

    Mr. U.K. Nair, Adv (R/ 5).

    Mr. H. Buragohain, Adv. (R/ 6), Mr. D. Chakraborty, Adv (R/ 8).

    WP(C) 2616/ 16- oral dt. 1-3-17 Page 1 of 13

    BEFORE

    THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE SUMAN SHYAM

    Date of hearing and judgement : 01/ 03/ 2017

    JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

    Heard Mr. A.C. Borbora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Smit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, Assam appearing for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Mr. B. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel, APSC, representing respondent nos. 3 and 4, Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for respondent no. 5, Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for respondent no. 8. None appears for respondent no. 7.

  2. By filing the writ petition, a challenge has been made to the selection of the respondent no. 6 for appointment to the post of Lecturer of Orthodontics in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati. The facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition, briefly stated, is that the respondent no. 3 had earlier issued an advertisement notice published in the English daily newspaper “ The Assam Tribune” in its issue dated 08/ 06/ 2015, inviting applications for filling up a few posts of Lecturers in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati, under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam. The controversy in this proceeding revolves around selection and appointment to the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics” appearing at Sl. No. 3 in the category of posts appearing in

    WP(C) 2616/ 16- oral dt. 1-3-17 Page 2 of 13

    the advertisement published on 08/ 06/ 2015. The writ petitioner and the respondent no. 6 had both applied for the said post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics”. I n total, 7 (seven) candidates had applied for the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics”. On completion of the interview process, the respondent No 3 published the select list for all the categories of post including the post of Lecturer of Orthodontics and the respondent No 6 was shown as the selected candidate for the said post. Aggrieved by the selection of the respondent no.6, the instant writ petition has been filed.

  3. According to the writ petitioner, the respondent no. 6 did not meet the eligibility norm of one year experience in the post of “Tutor of Public Health Dentistry” as required under the experience clause notified in the advertisement. I t is the further case of the petitioner that the advertisement notice clearly mentioned that preference shall be given to the Doctors working under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) at Regional Dental College, Guwahati. Since the petitioner was working as a Doctor in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati, on being appointed under Regulation 3 (f) with effect from the month of March, 2012 till June, 2013 as a Tutor of Public Health Dentistry and thereafter, as a Lecturer of Orthodontics with effect from June, 2013 till date, he was more qualified to be regularly appointed in the post of Lecturer of Orthodontics. However, by ignoring the better qualifications and merit of the writ petitioner, the respondent no. 6, who was not even eligible to be appointed, was selected by the respondent no. 3.

  4. Referring to the advertisement notice dated 08/ 06/ 2015, more particularly, the experience clause, Mr. Borbora, learned senior counsel has

    WP(C) 2616/ 16- oral dt. 1-3-17 Page 3 of 13

    forcefully argued that as per the advertisement notice, minimum one year experience in the post of “Tutor of Public Health Dentistry” was a sine qua non for permitting any candidate to apply for the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics”. The learned senior counsel submits that in this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioner meets the said experience norm. I t is also the admitted position of fact that the respondent no. 6 does not have one year experience as “Tutor of Public Health Dentistry”. I n such view of the matter, submits Mr. Borbora, the respondent no. 6 was not even eligible to apply for the post of “Lecturer of Orthodontics” and his selection is, therefore, liable to be declared as null and void by this Court.

  5. By referring to the pleadings contained in the writ petition, more particularly, those in paragraphs 19 and 20, Mr. Borbora submits that the respondent nos...

To continue reading

Request your trial