Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010066742024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2071/2024 GOPAL KRISHNA SAIKIA S/O- SATYANARAYAN SAIKIA, RESIDENT OF ATHABARI, KHUWANG, DISTRICT- SIVSAGAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED (APDCL) AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI- 781001, ASSAM. 2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HRA) (APDCL) BIJULEE BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001 ASSAM. 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER UPPER ASSAM ZONE (APDCL) NA-ALI JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT ASSAM. 4:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER SIVASAGAR ELECTRICAL CIRCLE (APDCL) SIVSAGAR Page No.# 2/7 DISTRICT- SIVSAGAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P HAZARIKA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 24-07-2025 Heard Mr. RP Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL). 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner putting to challenge the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the Managing Director (APDCL) at Guwahati, whereby the authorities on consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner rejected the same. The petitioner had applied for the post of “Sahayak” under the APDCL advertisement issued in the year 2014. The petitioner was not selected in the process and accordingly, he and other similarly situated candidates filed 2 (two) writ petitions being WP(C) No.4002 of 2015 and WP© No.4078 of 2015. These writ petitions came to be dismissed by a common order dated 16.09.2016. Subsequently, the review petition being Review Petition No.162/2016 was filed on the ground that the order of dismissal Page No.# 3/7 of the earlier writ petitions i.e. WP(C) No.4002 of 2015 and WP© No.4078 of 2015 be recalled as it is seen that no marks have been allotted under the head “experience” in respect of the petitioners. The Review Court by order dated 02.08.2018 passed in Review Petition No.162/2016 accepted the submissions of the petitioners and recalled the earlier order dated 16.09.2016 dismissing the writ petition. At Paragraph-11 of the said order dated 02.08.2018 passed in Review Petition No.162/2016, liberty was also granted to the review petitioners to make a challenge as to why they have not been allotted any marks under the head “experience” while the marks under the same head had been given to the selected candidates. 3. In view of the liberty granted, the writ petitioner filed another writ petition being WP(C) No. 7707/2019. This writ petition also came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 06.12.2022, whereby the Court directed the respondents to consider the experience certificate produced by the petitioner and have their own assessment as to what should be the marks given to the petitioner under the head “Educational/Experience marks”. The marks that may be given may be taken into consideration for the purpose of selection of the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement and reasoned order thereafter be passed. The reasoned order was directed to be passed within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Liberty Page No.# 4/7 was granted to the APDCL Authorities to form their own views on the credibility and quantitative evaluation that may be required to be given to such a certificate and in the event upon marks being granted under the head “Educational/Experience”, the petitioner being selected on merit, then it may be acted upon accordingly and if the petitioner is not selected upon assessment of the marks under the head “Education/Experience” marks, he may be informed about the outcome. 4. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the APDCL Authority constituted a committee of 3 officers to examine and evaluate the office records of experience certificate submitted by the petitioner and to assess the marks to be given and also to find out whether the marks given to the petitioner under the head “Education/Experience” marks results in the petitioner being selected in merit. The said Committee thereafter passed the impugned order dated 22.08.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marks allotted to the petitioner on the education/experience have been awarded the maximum possible marks of ‘15’. However, the petitioner was not selected as it was held that the petitioner scored less than the last qualifying marks of selected ST(P) candidate (category same as petitioner) which is 54.4. Accordingly, the writ petitioner could not be included in the merit list. Page No.# 5/7 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all these documents were before the authorities at the time when he presented himself for selection, however, the selection process undertaken revealed that the marks on experience certificate have not been granted, however, upon orders of this Court the full marks for the experience has been allotted. He therefore submits that the directions be issued to reevaluate the entire marking process allotted to the writ petitioner and thereafter pass an appropriate order. 6. Mr. B. Chowdhury, leaned Standing Counsel, APDCL disputes the contentions raised by the petitioner. He refers to the affidavit filed by the Department. It is submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Court the maximum possible marks available under the head ‘experience’ have been allotted to the petitioner, however, in spite of that the petitioner’s score is lowest marks obtained by the ST(P) candidate in that particular category and in which category the writ petitioner also belongs to. 7. Under such circumstances, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the authorities since the authorities have properly evaluated the documents and the marks have been correctly allotted to the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that there being no merit in the writ petition , the writ petition ought to be rejected and no orders are required to be passed Page No.# 6/7 against the respondents. 8. The petitioner also filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating the contention made by the respondents Department in the affidavit-in-opposition. 9. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 10. The basic grievance raised in the writ petition before this Court is that when the experience certificate was before the authorities, they failed to consider the said experience certificate which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing writ petition and it is only under the orders of the Court that the authorities had considered the allotment of marks for ‘experience’ that the petitioner had attained and therefore, there is every possibility that similar discrepancies have crept in while awarding the marks on merits in respect of the writ petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the selection process in respect of the petitioner be reevaluated again, so that, the petitioner who is an eligible candidate should not be deprived. 11. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the pleadings, what emerges before this Court in the present proceeding is that the select list has not been put under challenge, in spite of the affidavit-in-opposition being filed by the respondents to bring on Page No.# 7/7 record the marks obtained by the petitioner under the head of “experience” and the impugned order dated 22.08.2023 rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that he obtained marks below the lowest marks obtained by the last selected candidate in the ST(P) category. The petitioner has not arrayed the ST(P) candidate whose names have been reflected in the selected ST(P) candidate and which chart is also enclosed to the affidavit-in-opposition or at least the last selected ST(P) candidate, so that, in the event the Court decides to allow the writ petition, the appointment made to the last selected candidate can be interfered with to accommodate the writ petitioner. 12. Under such circumstances, besides the Court arriving at a conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petition, the Court finds deficiency on the part of the writ petitioner for non-joinder of necessary party and in view of the points discussed above, the Court is disinclined to entertain the writ petition. Since the writ petition is devoid of any merit, accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant