Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 107 (GAU)

Sanjeeb Kumar Das v. State of Assam

2010-02-11

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2010
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.C. Saikia Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. S. Borkataki learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 and Mr. R. Hussain learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 7. None appears for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, in spite of notices being served on them. 2. The brief facts of the case is that an advertisement for appointment of 1 (one) post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist and Peon was issued by the District & Sessions Judge/Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Goalpara, vide notification dated 21.11.2003. The petitioner applied for the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist. After holding the written, type and viva-voce tests a select list was prepared on 8.6.2004 and published on 16.6.2004. Out of five candidates selected for the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1. The respondent Nos. 7 and 6 were placed at serial Nos. 2 and 5 respectively in the said select list. While the petitioner was expecting appointment order to the said post, the present respondent No. 6 filed a writ petition, being WP (C) No. 5263/2004, which was disposed of vide an order dated 29.7.2004 directing the respondent No. 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of the order. On receipt of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 4 considered the case of the respondent No. 6 (petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition) and prepared a fresh select list cancelling the select list dated published on 16.6.2004. The notice was issued by the respondent No. 4 on 25.8.2004 published the new panel/select list showing the name of the present respondent No. 6 at serial No. 1 in the reserve category and placing the petitioner at serial No. 4 under unreserved category. This notice published the fresh panel is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Konwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist is an isolated single post created/sanctioned for the District Legal Services Authority, Goalpara, and the said post is outside the cadre of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Goalpara, and therefore the policy of reservation would not be applicable. 3. Mr. Konwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist is an isolated single post created/sanctioned for the District Legal Services Authority, Goalpara, and the said post is outside the cadre of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist in the establishment of the District & Sessions Judge, Goalpara, and therefore the policy of reservation would not be applicable. He further submits that while cancelling the earlier select list, the respondent No. 4 misinterpreted the provision of law in regard to the reservation of posts for ST (P) and as such the impugned select list as published on 25.8.2004 is liable to be cancelled or quashed. 4. Mr. Borkataki, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 with all fairness, submits that the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist in question is a single isolated post meant for the District Legal Services Authority, Goalpara and as such the reservation policy as adopted by the State Government would not be applicable to the present case. 5. The District Legal Services Authority has produced the relevant records, although no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by it. I have gone through the same. It is correct that in the first panel list the petitioner was selected and placed at serial No. 1 and in the second list his name has been placed at serial No. 4. But none of the parties has been able to produce sanction letter in connection with the post in question. Nor has it been made available in the record to ascertain as to how many posts of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist were created/sanctioned for the aforesaid District Legal Services Authority, Goalpara. 6. On perusal of the materials placed before this Court, it is found that the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist in question is a single post to be filled up by the respondent authority without being earmarked for the reserved category and it is the established law that there should not be any reservation for a single post. 7. In view of the above, the impugned action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the first panel list and preparing the second panel showing the respondent No. 6 at serial No. 1 as a reserved category candidate, is not sustainable under the law and as such the impugned notice No. DJG/2227, Goalpara, dated 25.8.2004 (Annexure-P/8) is liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent authority shall act upon the first panel list prepared on 8.6.2004 and published on 16.6.2004 (Annexure-P/5). The process shall be completed preferably within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of this order. 8. Considering the plight of the respondent No. 6 for Government job under the reservation Act/policy, it is provided that the respondent authorities, if any post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist is created/sanctioned in future for the respondent District Legal Services Authority, Goalpara, shall earmark it for the ST (P) candidates as per the roster. 9. Needless to say that in case the present writ petitioner does not accept the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist, the respondent authorities shall consider the case of the respondent No. 7, her name being placed at serial No. 2 in the first panel for appointment. 10. This petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.