Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010171582024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/432/2024 1.JAYANTA PAUL @ JAYANTA PAUL AND 8 ORS SON OF JITENDRA PAUL, RESIDENT OF VILL- SADHUKUTI, P.S.- PATHARKANDI, DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM. 2: JAIBUL HOQUE BARBHUIYA SON OF AZMAT ALI BARBHUIYA RESIDENT OF VILL.- DAKSHIN MOHANPUR PART-IV P.S.- KACHUDARAM DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. 3: BIPLAB CHANDRA DAS SON OF LT. SITANGSHU DAS RESIDENT OF VILL.- SRIPUR PART-II PS.- KATIGARAH DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. 4: SAHIDUL ISLAM LASKAR SON OF MOIN UDDIN LASKAR RESIDENT OF VILL.- RONGPUR PART-IV TARAPUR SHIBBARI ROAD P.S. SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. 5: ABDULLA CHOUDHURY SON OF ABDUL NOOR CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILL. BADRIPAR P.S.- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. 6: ATAUR RAHMAN SON OF LT. ABDUL MAZID RESIDENT OF VILL- GULLA SHIAL P.S. RAMKRISHNA NAGAR DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 7: ABUL HUSSAIN MAZUMDER SON OF LT. ELIAS ALI RESIDENT OF VILL.- DURGAPUR P.S. BARKHOLA DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM. Page No.# 2/4 8: FARUK AHMED CHOUDHURY SON OF ABDUR RAHIM CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILL.- BHATISONGJURAI P.S.- ALGAPUR DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM. 9: SUDIP KUMAR NATH SON OF LT. SATYANDRA CHANDRA NATH RESIDENT OF VILL.- BHAWANIPUR P.S.- RAMKRISHNA NAGAR DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HQ ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN) HQ. ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 4:THE STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD ASSAM REHABARI GUWAHATI- 781008 TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD CACHAR TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CACHAR. 6:THE DISTRICT LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD HAILAKANDI TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HAILAKANDI. 7:THE DISTRICT LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD KARIMGANJ For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.H. Ahmed, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Sarma, Govt. Advocate, Assam. Page No.# 3/4 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 29.01.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. The appellants grievance is in relation to WP(C) No.5535/2022. The appellants raised a grievance before the Writ Court that in the recruitment process for filling up the post of Constables under the Assam Industrial Security Force, the respondents had not adopted a uniform pattern in allotting the marks for the previous service rendered either as Home Guards or Special Police Officers (SPOs). The learned Single Judge, while considering the said argument, noticed that in the certificates issued in favour of the appellants for their engagement as either Home Guards or Special Police Officers, the duration of engagement had not been specified. With the consent of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the counsel for the State, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the direction to review the process of allotting marks against the experience earned by the SPOs or Home Guards, while allotting 2(two) marks uniformly to all the Home Guards or SPOs, in whose cases the duration of their engagement as Home Guards or SPOs had not been specified. From the above, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellants as per the consent given by the counsel for the appellants before the Writ Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that, as a matter of fact, Page No.# 4/4 the appellants did not give any such consent and their Advocate consented without informing them. Be that as it may, since the impugned order was passed on the basis of the consent given by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, the appellants are free to avail appropriate remedy available to them under the law. With these observations, this writ appeal is dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant