Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010213582023 2025:GAU-AS:6505 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5566/2023 CHABIN THAKURIA S/O- SUREN THAKURIA, R/O- VILLAGE SUALKUCHI, P.O AND P.S- SUALKUCHI, PIN-781103, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE L.R. AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DIST- KAMRUP (M), PIN-781006, ASSAM 2:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI PIN-781001 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:THE CHAIRMAN SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF PEON AND CHOWKIDAR IN THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-01 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4:MANUMITA RABHA D/O- PARESH RABHA Page No.# 2/4 PEON OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI-01 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Munir, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T. R. Gogoi, Government Advocate : Mr. H. K. Das, SC, GHC : Mr. B. K. Bhagawati, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 22.05.2025 Heard Mr. P. K. Munir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. B. K. Bhagawati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court by challenging the selection of the respondent No.4 which was notified vide the notification dated 09.08.2023 and the subsequent appointment made on the basis thereof. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that an advertisement was issued on 10.03.2023 by the District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati i.e. the respondent No.2 herein inviting applications from Page No.# 3/4 eligible candidates for the various posts including 3 (three) posts of peon which was specifically reserved for ST(P), ST(H) and PWD. The petitioner herein had applied as a candidate under the PWD category. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 had applied in the category of ST(P) as would be evident from the acceptance of the application issued by the respondent No.2 wherein at Serial No.6 of Annexure-I of the notification dated 26.06.2023, the respondent No.4 was shown in the category of ST(P). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to the acceptance of the candidates in respect to the PWD category wherein the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No.166 in the category of PWD. The learned counsel further submitted that pursuant thereto, the selection was conducted as would appear from the stand which have been taken by the respondent authorities. It also appears from the stand of the Respondent Authorities as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.4 had submitted a representation for non-consideration in the category of PWD and thereupon, the respondent No.4 was selected in the category of PWD. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent authorities more particularly the respondent No.2 as well as the respondent No.3 have deviated from the selection procedure and held a separate interview for the respondent No.4 which violates the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. Per contra, Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the respondent No.4 had duly applied in the PWD category, but due to oversight, in the acceptance list, it was shown as ST(P). Upon this aspect being brought to Page No.# 4/4 the attention of the respondent No.2, the said aspect was rectified and thereupon a selection was held wherein it was found that the respondent No.4 was the most eligible amongst the PWD candidates for which she was selected which was notified vide the notification dated 09.08.2023. 6. Mr. B. K. Bhagawati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 drew the attention of this Court to the Disability Certificate which was issued in favour of the respondent No.4 and further submitted that she had duly applied in the category of PWD. He supported the submissions so made by Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 7. This Court had duly heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also given anxious consideration to the respective submissions and perused materials on record. 8. The fact that the respondent No.4 is eligible and applied in the PWD category is not in doubt. This Court further takes note of that the respondent No.4 was found to be most eligible amongst the PWD candidates by the selection board. Consequently, there is no violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution insofar as the selection of the respondent No.4 and the subsequent of appointment of the respondent No.4 as a peon. 9. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition for which the instant petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant