Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010055422021 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2247/2021 SUMAN MAZUMDAR S/O- PRODIP MAZUMDAR, RAILWAY COLONY EAST KANISHAIL, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788711 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN BLOCK-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI PIN- 110003 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX LAST GATE-BASISTHA ROAD P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GHY ASSAM- 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S BORA, MS. N CHAKRABORTY Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 04/06/2026 None appears for the parties on call. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance with regard to a recruitment exercise carried out by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF & Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018. 3. The petitioner projects in the writ petition that he had cleared all the stages of the selection process and had secured marks above the cut of marks. However, the respondent authorities, although, at the time of conducting the Detail Medical Examination, had not rejected the case of the petitioner. Subsequently, while publishing the select list, the name of the petitioner was not incorporated and on enquiry, it was given to understand that he was declared unfit in the Detail Medical Examination. The petitioner had prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities for carrying out a review medical examination in the matter. The selection was initiated in the year 2018 and the select list was published in the year 2021. 4. Noticing the long lapse of time occasioning since institution of the present proceedings and also the nature of reliefs sought for in the present writ petition, this Court considering the non-representation of the petitioner in the matter, presumes that the petitioner has been employed in some other service. Page No.# 3/3 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed for non- prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant