Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 916 (GAU)

Dilip Barman v. Numuligarh Refinery Ltd.

2017-07-13

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. None appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the respondent. Notice was issued by the order dated 29.05.2009 without any interim order and on 11.05.2005, Mr. I.H. Borbhuiyan, learned counsel had made a submission that the case be listed for hearing. Apart from the two dates, this writ petition was not listed on any other occasion. It being a matter pending since the year 2009, this Court deems it appropriate that in the aforesaid circumstance, this writ petition be taken up for its final consideration even in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the selection process adopted by the respondent Numuligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) for appointment of 7 (seven) numbers of fitters under the said organization. It is stated in paragraphs of the petition that the petitioner is one of the son of Anil Barman, whose 8 bighas land had been taken away by the respondent for construction of Numuligarh Refinery Township in the year 2003. In paragraph-3, the petitioner refers to certain advertisement through the District Employment Exchange, Golaghat wherein, his name was enrolled by the District Employment Exchange and states that he was advised to appear in the fitter test vide letter dated 09.08.2007 of the respondent authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in the test and he was also called for the interview by letter dated 29.02.2008. 3. In the aforesaid circumstance, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities had secretly prepared a select list, which was not published and asked some of the candidates to appear for the medical examination for being appointed against the seven number of posts of fitter. It is stated that certain writ petitions were preferred before this Court for a direction for publishing the select list and accordingly, a select list dated 23.09.2008 was published, which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. The petitioner assails the said select list by stating in paragraph-6 of the writ petition that the said select list is not proper and it was prepared on a pick and choose basis and favourable candidates of the respondent authorities as well as family members of the workers union of Numuligarh Refinery Ltd., were included in the select list. 5. The petitioner assails the said select list by stating in paragraph-6 of the writ petition that the said select list is not proper and it was prepared on a pick and choose basis and favourable candidates of the respondent authorities as well as family members of the workers union of Numuligarh Refinery Ltd., were included in the select list. 5. In paragraph-9 of the writ petition, the petitioner makes a claim that he being a member of the land looser family, the respondent authorities ought to have considered him for appointment to the post of fitter. Apart from the aforesaid two ground that the select list was not proper and was prepared though pick and choose method and that the appointment ought to have been given to the petitioner for being a member of the land looser family, no other ground has been taken in assailing the select list dated 23.09.2008. 6. One of the prayers in the writ petition is that the respondent authorities be directed to produce the record and documents based on which, the select list was prepared and to set aside the same, if found illegal. 7. Pursuant to the earlier orders of this Court, Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the NRL has produced the selection records as well as the select list. From the records, it is stated that altogether 189 numbers of candidates had appeared in the written test, out of which, 116 numbers of candidates were called for the interview by the respondent authorities. Pursuant to the said written test and interview, the respondent authorities had selected 16 candidates in order of merit, who had secured 110 or more marks. Out of the said 16 candidates so selected, the respondent authorities had offered appointment to the 7 candidates in order of merit and all such 7 candidates had already been appointed and are working satisfactorily with the respondent authorities. Further the writ petitioner had also not submitted any further pleading indicating any illegality in the selection procedure adopted by the respondent authorities. 8. In view of the aforesaid materials being produced by Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the respondent authorities, this Court has not noticed any illegality or infirmity in the selection procedure adopted by the respondent authorities in the select list and the resultant appointment. 8. In view of the aforesaid materials being produced by Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the respondent authorities, this Court has not noticed any illegality or infirmity in the selection procedure adopted by the respondent authorities in the select list and the resultant appointment. It is also stated that although the writ petition was filed much subsequent to the selection list being published, the selected candidates had not been arrayed as respondents in this petition. In view of the above, this petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.