Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010101432025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/179/2025 MEDHABRATA BURAGOHAIN S/O SRI DIBAKAR BURAOHINA, R/O MISSION COMPOUND, P.O. JORHAT, P.S. JORHAT, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN 785014. VERSUS THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN JAWAHARNAGAR, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI 22 2:THE SECRETARY ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER APSC JAWAHARNAGAR KHANAPRARA GUWAHTAI-22 3:THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION APSC JAWAHARNAGAR KHANAPRA GUWAHATI 22 4:THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER APSC JAWAHARNAGAR KHANAPARA GUWAHATI 22 5:MS. MUNMI BORDOLOI Page No.# 2/5 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF BBA CKB COMMERCE COLLEGE KAMAR BANDHA ROAD NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE P.O. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN 78500 For the Appellant : Mr. H. K. Das, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. T. J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, Advocate, SC, APSC. BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 23.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) Heard Mr. H. K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the Assam Public Service Commission. 2. The appellant questions the judgment dated 11.02.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.2053/2024, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for consideration of his case by the Assam Public Service Commission and the Government was rejected. 3. On the requisition by the Government for holding competitive examination, the Commission had held the examination in which the appellant had participated and had passed the screening preliminary examination. Page No.# 3/5 Thereafter, he appeared in all the 6 (six) Papers in the Mains examination. However, unfortunately, in one of the Papers, (General Studies Paper No.III) he inadvertently entered wrong roll number. This led to the cancellation of his entire candidature, which he could detect only when he did not find his name in the list of successful candidates and thereafter, on RTI enquiry. On perusal of his QCA answer booklet, the appellant had found that a wrong roll number was entered there but it was not in his handwriting. 4. This was but an alternative argument. 5. The first contention of the appellant was that there was no dispute that he had not appeared in the concerned examination, which could have been verified from the attendance sheet. Later, the Invigilator had also signed the QCA booklet. There could have been no dispute about the appellant having appeared in the examination as in all other 5 Papers, fortunately correct roll number was entered in the column meant for it. This was more than a very strong evidence of the appellant having appeared in all the Papers in the Mains Examination. The Commission, Mr. Das argues, would have done better, in the interest of the candidates in general and the appellant in particular, in having verified that the wrong entry of the roll number could be inadvertent, in a state of nervous frenzy of a student while appearing in a competitive examination. 6. In the roll number entered by the appellant in the concerned QCA answer booklet, one figure was missing whereas the other figure was wrong. 7. It appears that the appellant had, before the Writ Court, taken a contradictory plea that the roll number was entered by somebody else as it was not in his handwriting. This could not have been the case for the reason that Page No.# 4/5 there was no tampering or manipulation; just the wrong roll number having been entered with one figure wrongly stated and one figure missing. 8. The learned Single Judge, however, found that, according to the instructions issued to the candidates, wrong roll number would not have established the identity of the candidate/appellant and therefore in either the case of inadvertence or of tampering/manipulation, the candidature of the appellant has become suspect. 9. Very strenuous efforts were made by the learned counsel for the appellant to canvas that the identity of the appellant as a candidate in the examination could have been easily established with comparing his handwriting in the concerned QCA answer booklet with the handwriting in the five Papers in which he had appeared. Apart from that, his signature on the attendance sheet before he entered the examination hall was also a proof of the fact that there was no ghost writer employed by him. 10. We do find some substance in the submission of Mr. Das but on a deeper probe, we found that the advertisement was issued in the year 2022 and the results were published in the year 2024. Thereafter, accepting the result published by the Commission, the Government went ahead and appointed the successful candidates on respective posts. We had, at one point of time, during the course of argument, contemplated to enquire from the Government whether any post against the advertisement had remained vacant, but on a second thought that any vacancy remaining must have been carried over to the next appointment process, which also stands concluded, as informed to us by Mr. Mahanta, we are left with no option but to close this appeal. 11. Apart from this, we do not find any lacuna in the judgment of the Page No.# 5/5 learned Single Judge to justify any interference. 12. We order accordingly. 13. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant