Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 167 (GAU)

Reena Baro v. State of Assam

2017-02-08

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the BTC as well as Mr. M Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The matter relates to selection and appointment of a Sweeper in the BTC. The selection was conducted in the year 2008-2009 and the petitioner had appeared in the selection process under Roll No. SW-71. The petitioner in the present writ petition has made a claim that though she was selected for the post of Sweeper, the respondent No. 4 had been appointed as Sweeper due to a fraud played by the respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and their addresses are same and their father's names are almost the same. While the petitioner's father name is Late Bapa Ram Baro, the respondent No. 4's father name is Bapu Ram Boro. In view of the above, this Court had directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the allegation made by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware that the respondent No. 4 had taken her place as a Sweeper, inasmuch as, the petitioner did not know that she had been selected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the fraud committed by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner has not been appointed to the post of Sweeper. 4. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the BTC submits that the present writ petition should be dismissed for delay and laches as the petitioner has filed the writ petition only in the year 2015. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 . She also submits that as per the enquiry report, the petitioner did not pursue the results of the selection process and had in fact lived in Baksa, BTAD and subsequently in New Delhi prior to filing of the present writ petition. 5. Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the respondent No. 4 has not contacted him though he has been engaged through another counsel. 5. Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the respondent No. 4 has not contacted him though he has been engaged through another counsel. He submits that though he had written a letter to the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 4 has not communicated with him. Accordingly, he submits that he has no comments to make in the present case. 6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 7. The affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 09.01.2017 has as Annexure-A, which is an enquiry report dated 06.07.2015 made by the Secretary of the Bodoland Territorial Council. The enquiry report has concluded with the finding that it was the petitioner, who was selected for the post of Sweeper in the selection process and the respondent No. 4, who is presently working as Sweeper in place of the petitioner was not the selected person. In fact, the respondent No. 4 was also an illiterate. 8. On perusal of the enquiry report dated 06.07.2015, it is apparently clear that the petitioner was the person selected for the post of Sweeper in pursuance to the selection process held in the year 2009. It is also not disputed by the counsels for the parties that the respondent No. 4 is still working as a Sweeper in PHC, Orang till today. 9. The contents of the enquiry report also shows that the respondent No. 4 is an illiterate person and could not have been selected in the selection process. Due to the fraud committed by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner has been denied appointment to the post of Sweeper. Though there is delay in filing the writ petition, this Court does not find that any prejudice is caused to the State respondents due to the delay in filing the writ petition. Also, no third party rights have arisen. In view of the fact that the respondent No. 4 is still continuing in the post of Sweeper as on date, the illegal appointment of the respondent No. 4, which is due a fraud played by the respondent No. 4 is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to issue an order appointing the petitioner in place of the respondent No. 4 as Sweeper. The respondents are directed to issue an order appointing the petitioner in place of the respondent No. 4 as Sweeper. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. Writ petition stands disposed off accordingly.