Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 874 (GAU)

Bina Devi v. State Of Assam

2019-08-05

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, MANISH CHOUDHURY

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.1, 2 and 4; Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Social Welfare Department for Respondent No.5 and Ms. M.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for Respondent No.6. 2. Challenge in this writ appeal is to an order dated 12.6.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby two writ petitions were disposed of. Writ Petition (C) No.3594/2015 was filed by the present appellant and Writ Petition (C) No.1254/2015 was filed by the present Respondent No.6. A single appeal has been filed though two writ petitions were disposed of. 3. There was an advertisement dated 4.11.2013, amongst others, for the post of Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator, for which both the present appellant and the Respondent No.6 had participated. The appellant had secured less marks than the Respondent No.6 in the selection process. 4. The appellant had challenged the selection of the Respondent No.6 by filing Writ Petition (C) No.7391 of 2013. The said writ petition was dismissed on withdrawal on 2.5.2014. 5. The case of the appellant in the present round of litigation is that she was temporarily engaged on contractual basis by the District Social Welfare Officer-Respondent No.5, as an Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator in the Office of the Juvenile Justice Board at Udalguri on 19.2.2011 and such engagement was continued from time to time. However, no extension of service was made on and from 31.3.2014, though she has been rendering service. 6. Accordingly, a prayer has been made in the writ petition to extend the tenure of service of the appellant with effect from 31.3.2014 onwards. 7. The case presented by the Respondent No.6 in the writ petition, namely W.P.(C) No.1254/2015, is that he was engaged pursuant to the said advertisement dated 4.11.2013 after a regular process of selection by an order dated 4.12.2013 and he had, accordingly, joined the post on 5.12.2013. However, the respondent authorities were not allowing him to work, while permitting the appellant, though not selected, to work. It is in that circumstance, the writ petition was filed by him for a direction to the respondent authorities to allow him to work and to release his pending salary. 8. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, there is no averment that the appellant was selected following a due process of selection. It is in that circumstance, the writ petition was filed by him for a direction to the respondent authorities to allow him to work and to release his pending salary. 8. In the writ petition filed by the appellant, there is no averment that the appellant was selected following a due process of selection. It also appears from the order of appointment of the appellant that she was appointed on contractual basis on consolidated salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. That apart, the appellant had responded to the advertisement dated 4.11.2013 and participated in the selection process, where she was not selected. Such selection was called in question in W.P.(C) No.7391/2013, which was withdrawn by the appellant. With the withdrawal of the writ petition with no liberty, there can be no challenge to the appointment or engagement of the Respondent No.6. Admittedly, there is only one post for which both the appellant and the Respondent No.6 are competing. In the aforesaid factual matrix, on a detailed consideration, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent No.6 while dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellant. 9. We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment under appeal and, accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.