UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHRI NANI RIKU S/O SHRI NANI KECHI PO & PS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-3-141
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on March 27,2018

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
Shri Nani Riku S/O Shri Nani Kechi Po And Ps Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KALYAN RAI SURANA,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Pritam Taffo, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Nani Tagia, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Hage Lampu, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the sole respondent.
(2.) This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2001 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in
(3.) In brief, the facts of the case, is that, on 07.08.1997, an Advertisement was published, amongst others, in "The Arunachal Times", inviting applications for appointment to 50 nos. of posts of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer(General) Grade-II (hereinafter referred to as 'ACIO'). The vacancies were to be filled-up from the candidates domiciled in the North-Eastern States and the selections were to be made through competitive examination comprising of written examination and oral interview. Accordingly, on 08.02.1998, the written examination was held and 17(seventeen) candidates were declared to have been passed including the writ petitioner (respondent, herein). On 17.09.1998, the viva voce test was held and the select list consisting of 13 candidates was published by the concerned authorities in the month of May, 1999, wherein the name of the respondent appeared at Sl. No. 10. It was projected that out of the said select list, only 5(five) appointments were made, out of which, 2(two) candidates surrendered their candidatures, hence, the respondent approached this Court, for appointment to the resultant vacancy. The learned single Judge, upon considering the fact that 2(two) candidates had surrendered their candidatures, directed the respondent who was placed at Sl. No. 10 of the select list to be appointed to one of such vacancy to the post of ACIO, directing that the respondent be appointed within 1(one) month from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. Against the said judgment and order dated 14.05.2001 passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant preferred an application before this Court for review being Rev. Pet. 03(AP)2001. The learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted that the said review petition was withdrawn and thereafter, another review petition was preferred by the appellant which was registered as Rev. Pet. 09(AP)2001 and the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 20.05.2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as W.A.19(AP)2005. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.05.2006, dismissed the writ appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay, with an observation that the said order will not prevent the appellant to challenge the order passed in the writ petition in which event, the matter shall be heard on its own merits. The appellant, thereafter, filed another Writ Appeal, challenging the order dated 14.05.2001 passed by this Court in WP(c)119(AP)2000 which was registered as W.A. 370/2007. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.10.2007 dismissed the said appeal at the admission stage by recording that nothing was brought to their notice to demonstrate that the judgment under appeal, called for interference. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 6873/2008. The Apex Court by observing that the Division Bench of this Court should have given proper reasons, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to this Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. This is how the present appeal has been revived and has come up for hearing.;


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