DWIJEN KR.ROY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. AK Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel, BTC representing the Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5, Mr. R De, learned counsel representing the Respondent Nos.6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 to 25 and 27 to 31. Ms. K Phukan, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.1. In respect of notice upon the remaining Respondents, Office Note dated 13.6.2013 indicates that such service of notice is complete against all the Respondents.

(2.) THE basic ground of challenge is that the petitioner who hails from the Scheduled Caste category nor any other candidates hailing from the same category had been selected. The said action on the part of the Respondents is not commensurate with the concept of adequate representation. The petitioner refers to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 and from paragraph 4 thereof, submits that on the very admission of the Respondents, due consideration had been given for adequate representation from amongst the -non-tribals- at the time of selection and that the Select List itself stood proof of the same. Mr. Chauhan submits that the said statement is not in tandem with the information that can be derived from the Select List, in that no candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste category had been selected.

(3.) A perusal of the said Select List, which had been approved on the basis of merit, makes it abundantly clear that indeed candidates who are -non-tribals- had also been included in the Select List. As such, there is no discrepancy in the statement made at paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition read with the Select List in question.