Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010209992025 2025:GAU-AS:13106 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5638/2025 RAJA MITRA S/O - LT. MRIDUL MITRA, RESIDENT OF NALIAPOOL, NEW MASTERPARA, WARD NO 19, P.O. AND PS- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, JANTA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER CUM COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM. 3:THE SECRETARY FINANCE THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI DIVISION ASSAM 5:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DIBRUGARH NEAR PHOOLBAGAN IN FRONT OF CENTRAL JAIL Page No.# 2/6 DIBRUGARH DISTRICT ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate Mr. A. Chaliha, Standing Counsel Date of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date of Judgment : 22.09.2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A. Chaliha, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.3. 2. None appears on behalf of the Gauhati High Court on call. 3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Chowkidar pursuant to a selection process being initiated vide an Advertisement dated 04.10.2019. 4. It is seen from the materials on record that the petitioner herein Page No.# 3/6 was selected to the post of Chowkidar on merit and it was informed vide a Notification dated 30.01.2020. Subsequently, the District and Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh had also intimated the Joint Director of Health Services, Dibrugarh vide a communication dated 19.02.2020 with a copy to the petitioner about his medical fitness test. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 5 did not issue the Appointment Letter. Under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation on 08.10.2020, requesting that the appointment letter be issued in favour of the petitioner. 5. The respondent No. 5 vide a communication dated 07.12.2020 informed the petitioner that in view of the directions issued by the Gauhati High Court on the Administrative side vide a letter dated 25.11.2020, the selection process for filling up of 1 (one) post of Process Server, 1 (one) post of Chowkidar and 1 (one) post of Peon for the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate-cum-Munsiff, Naharkatia as well as the selection result issued vide Office Memo dated 30.01.2020 and published in the Official Website dated 30.01.2020 was cancelled. 6. The records reveal that the petitioner thereupon sat tight and did not do anything till 25.09.2024 when the petitioner sought for certain information again as regards the reasons for cancellation of the selection process for filling up of 1 (one) post of Process Server, 1 Page No.# 4/6 (one) post of Chowkidar and 1 (one) post of Peon for the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate-cum-Munsiff, Naharkatia under the Establishment of the District and Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. 7. The petitioner was informed vide a reply dated 02.11.2024 that the posts which ought to have been filled up for the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate-cum-Munsiff, Naharkatia were shifted from Munsiff-cum-JMFC, Udalguri vide letter dated 29.07.2019, however, the respective posts were already filled up in Udalguri prior to the shifting of the said posts. 8. It is pertinent at this stage to take note of that the present writ petition was filed on 06.09.2025. 9. The first and foremost question which arises in the present proceedings is whether this Court should at all entertain such belated claims that too when the petitioner was made aware of on 07.12.2020 that the selection process was cancelled. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108. Paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the said judgment, being relevant are reproduced herein below: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. Page No.# 5/6 The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons — who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 10. In the instant case, taking into account the facts involved and the law laid down, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ Page No.# 6/6 petition is not a fit case to be entertained. 11. On merits also, the question which arises is, as to whether, the petitioner has any right upon being selected to be appointed to the post. It is the settled principles of law that the right to appointment is not a vested or a fundamental right. It is only a right to be considered for appointment which is a fundamental right. 12. In the instant case, it is seen that the posts, for which, the petitioner and others were selected pursuant to an Advertisement were posts which were supposed to be transferred for Administrative exigency from the Establishment of the District Judiciary of Udalguri to the Establishment of the Judicial Magistrate-cum-Munsiff, Naharkatia. However, prior to the selection process being over, the posts which were supposed to be transferred were already filled up in the Establishment of the District Judiciary at Udalguri. 13. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case for entertaining the instant writ petition and accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant