Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 804 (GAU)

Abdul Ohab v. State of Assam

2018-05-15

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt, advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department, Mr. R. Borpujari appears for the respondent No. 2. However, the counsel for the respondent Nos. 10,11 and 12 are not present in court. 2. The matter pertains to appointment of Chainman in the amalgamated establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, in pursuant to the advertisement dated 2.3.2010 (Annexure 22) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Amingaon. The petitioner offered his candidature and participated in the selection exercise, but was unsuccessful. Therefore, he challenges the appointment order dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure 26), whereby, Hriday Das and Grimbason Sangma (respondent Nos. 11 and 12) have been appointed as Chainman in the Nagarbera Revenue Circle and Chamaria Revenue Circle, respectively. 3.1 The learned counsel Mr. M.A. Sheikh submits that the petitioner was temporarily engaged as a Chainman on 12.11.1993 from 1.10.1992 to 31.5.1993 and thereafter also, he was similarly engaged from time-to-time. Emphasizing on the experience gained by the petitioner, Mr. Sheikh argues that the petitioner ought to have been selected for the post where the petitioner has acquired the necessary job skill. 3.2 The counsel then refers to the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class-III and Class-IV Posts) Rules, 1997 (‘the Recruitment Rules’) to contend that constitution of the selection committee is prescribed for appointment to the Grade-IV posts in the DC's establishment and he argues that here the exercise was undertaken by an invalid committee. 4. On the other hand, Mr. D. Nath, the learned Addl. Sr. Govt, advocate refers to the counter-affidavit filed on 7.5.2013 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, to project that selection was made on merit through a transparent process and no infirmity could be identified by the petitioner to interfere with the recruitment exercise. 5. The Government advocate further submits that the selection committee was in conformity with rule 5(1)(b) of the Recruitment Rules was constituted on 19.3.2010 by the Commissioner of Lower Assam Division and accordingly Mr. Nath questions the bona fide of the challenge made by the unsuccessful candidate. 6. The petitioner as is apparent, has some job experience of Chairman, but it is not his case that the candidates who were selected, are undeserving of appointment. Nath questions the bona fide of the challenge made by the unsuccessful candidate. 6. The petitioner as is apparent, has some job experience of Chairman, but it is not his case that the candidates who were selected, are undeserving of appointment. In fact the limited challenge of the unsuccessful candidate is whether the selection committee was constituted, in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. 7. It can be seen from the counter-affidavit that the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division had nominated the SDO(C), Rangia; the Finance and Accounts Officer in the DC's Establishment and the Asstt. Director of the District Employment Exchange, Guwahati to function as members of the selection committee and nomination of these 3 officers, is found to be consistent with the requirement of sub-rule (iii) of rule 5(1)(b) of the Recruitment Rules. Furthermore the senior most Addl. D.C. acted as the Chairman and the SDO(S), Kamrup, Amingaon functioned as the Member-Secretary of the selection committee. Therefore, the composition of the selection committee is found to be conforming to the requirement of rule 5(1)(b) of the Recruitment Rules. 8. Insofar as the expectation of the petitioner, it is seen that the candidates were assessed on the basis of their educational qualification, general knowledge and personality and the merit of the candidate was the sole basis for the recommendation made by the selection committee for appointment of the private respondents. 9. At this juncture it will be relevant to mention that the petitioner has not alleged any malicious selection or even malpractice, in the recruitment exercise undertaken by the appointing authority. As noted earlier, the committee which recommended the appointment was composed of those very officers, envisaged under rule 5(1)(b) of the Recruitment Rules. 10. In the above circumstances, I am convinced that the Chairmen were appointed through a bona fide exercise and it is not an appropriate case for intervention by the High Court. Accordingly the matter is found devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No cost.