ALAKA SAIKIA DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Upadhayay, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking appointment in the establishment of the Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department, Guwahati Project Circle in the posts as indicated hereinafter. The petitioner no.1 is seeking appointment in the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner no.2 is seeking appointment in the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner no.3 is seeking appointment in the post of Section Assistant. The petitioner no.4 is seeking appointment in the post of Power Pump Operator.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to an advertisement published in newspapers on 28.08.2010, applications were invited for recruitment in respect of vacancy in Grade-III posts of Junior Assistant, Section Assistant, Tracer and Power Pump Operator under the District Level Offices in Irrigation Department. The advertised vacancies were as under (i) Junior Assistant - 35; Section Assistant - 70; Tracer - 10; and Power Pump Operator - 25. As per the said advertisement, a written test of 100 marks was envisaged for the subjects of English (35 marks), Mathematics (35 marks) and General Knowledge (30 marks) for the said posts and it was provided that successful candidates would be called for viva voce test carrying 30 marks. The result of written test was declared on 07.06.2011. It is submitted that all the four petitioners were short listed as successful candidates and they were called oral interview. As per the final select list published in the newspaper on 08.10.2011, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department (respondent No.2) had announced selection of 28 candidates for the post of Junior Assistant; 42 candidates for the post of Section Assistant; 5 candidates for the post of Tracer and 21 candidates for the post of Power Pump Operator. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that having advertised recruitment for a total number of 140 vacant posts in four category as indicated herein before, the respondents had no power to cancel any post after the selection process had begun. It is submitted that there were no anomaly in the conduct of examination and that to their knowledge, no enquiry of any kind had stalled selection and appointment for the remaining 43 numbers of vacant posts. Hence, the learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that as there were still 43 vacancies to be filled up, this was a fit and proper case for issuing direction to the Irrigation Department to appoint the petitioners in any of these 43 vacant posts of Junior Assistant, Section Assistant, Tracer and Power Pump Operator. It is also submitted that the reservation of vacancies for SC, ST(P), ST(H), OBC, MOBC, PH and Women have not been indicated in the final select list. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the selection process was dehors the reservation policy and that there were anomalies in the selection process, and that the selection process was not undertaken in a transparent manner.