MANOWAR HUSSAIN AND 2 ORS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY COMMISSIONER AND SECY TO GOVT OF ASSAM
LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-45
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on April 24,2018

Manowar Hussain And 2 Ors Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Assam And Ors Rep By Commissioner And Secy To Govt Of Assam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Hrishikesh Roy, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. B. Chetri, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondent Nos.1 4 are represented by Mr. S.K. Medhi, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam. The private respondent Nos.5 20 who were arrayed subsequently by virtue of the order passed on 17.12.2011 in the Misc. Case No.2680/2011, are however unrepresented.
(2.) The matter pertains to recruitment of Assam Forest Protection Force Constable (hereinafter referred to as the "AFPF Constable") in the Social Forestry Department of Assam Government. The three petitioners offered their candidates and being unsuccessful, they challenge the selection process and the select list notified on 8.12.2011 (Annexure-F). All three candidates belong to the General Category and they contend that selection of unmerited candidates was facilitated by including nonmatriculates in the select list and also those who have failed to qualify in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) segment of the recruitment process. The granting of higher credit in the viva-voce segment to ensure selection, is also argued by the petitioners.
(3.) 3.1 The learned Counsel Mr. B. Chetri pinpointing the grievances firstly submits that the candidate Deben Kutum who is arrayed as respondent No.5 did not qualify in the PET and yet his Roll Number was included in the final select list. 3.2 The candidates Counsel next contend that although minimum educational qualification was prescribed as Matriculation or equivalent, some non-matriculates have also been selected without justification. 3.3 To project the defective selection Mr. Chetri submits that the respondent No.20 Jainur Ali is a General Category candidate but is shown to be selected in the Scheduled Caste category and accordingly the selection is projected to be vitiated. 3.4 In so far as the respondent Nos.10 19 are concerned, the petitioners contend that selection of these candidates were facilitated by granting them higher marks in the viva-voce segment.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.