Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010120522025 2025:GAU-AS:16204 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3212/2025 ANAND RABIDAS S/O- BABULAL RABIDAS, R/O- RONGPUR PART-I, P.O. NUTAN DAYAPUR, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788009. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL M. G. ROAD GUWAHATI-781001. 3:THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER-CUM-COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT JANATA BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 4:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT M. G. ROAD GUWAHATI-781001. 5:THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE CHARAIDEO DISTRICT-CHARAIDEO SONARI ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 PIN- 785690. 6:THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHARAIDEO CHARAIDEO DISTRICT-CHARAIDEO SONARI ASSAM PIN- 785690. 7:THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DISTRICT CHARAIDEO SONARI ASSAM PIN- 785690 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. G Alam Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. G Baishya, Standing Counsel Gauhati High Court Mr. SR Baruah, Govt. Advocate Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 27.11.2025 Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced Page No.# 3/6 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. G Alam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G Baishya, the learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Mr. SR Baruah, the learned Government Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside and quashing the letter dated 27.01.2025 bearing Memo No. DJCHA/2025/208 as well as the communication dated 08.01.2025 bearing Memo No. DJCHA/2025/56 both issued by the issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Charaideo and further seeking a mandamus thereby permitting the petitioner to continue in his service as a Driver in the Office of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Charaideo. 3. The relevant facts, for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition are that an advertisement was issued on 26.04.2024 by the Office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Charaideo for filling up the post of Driver in the unreserved category. The petitioner pursuant to the said selection process initiated participated in the said selection process along with various other candidates. In pursuance to the selection so conducted, the petitioner was provisionally selected on the basis of merit for appointment to the post of Driver and the same was notified vide the Notification dated 17.12.2024. Subsequent thereto, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Charaideo issued an order dated 30.12.2024 whereby the petitioner was provisionally appointed as a Driver in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner thereupon joined on 07.01.2025. However, to the Page No.# 4/6 surprise of the petitioner from 08.01.2025 the petitioner was not permitted to continue. 4. Upon filing of an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner came to learn that the reason for not permitting the petitioner to join is on account of a communication issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Charaideo to the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 08.01.2025. The petitioner was also informed vide the information provided on 05.03.2025 that the District and Sessions Judge, Charaideo had directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo to cancel the appointment of the petitioner in the establishment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo on the ground that the District and Sessions Judge, Charaideo found some discrepancies in the recruitment process and further directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to start a fresh recruitment process for the same, thereby permitting the petitioner to apply afresh in the new recruitment process. 5. The petitioner thereupon submitted representations, but, however, did not receive any favourable response, for which, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 11.06.2025 had issued notice. The records further reveal that the respondent No.5 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein how the selection process was initiated and culminated were duly mentioned. In addition to that, it is apposite to take note of that the respondents have also brought on record, a communication issued Page No.# 5/6 by the District and Sessions Judge, Charaideo, dated 16.06.2025 whereby the communications dated 08.01.2025 and 27.01.2025 have been recalled. 7. This Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. It has also been submitted at the Bar that in view of the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has not been permitted to continue. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 8. The materials on record reveal that the Office of the respondent No.6 had initiated a selection process and after carrying out the said selection process, had selected the petitioner vide the Notification dated 17.12.2024 and had provisionally appointed the petitioner vide an order dated 30.12.2024. The petitioner thereupon was permitted to join on 07.01.2025. However, abruptly the petitioner was not permitted to continue. The basis on which the petitioner was not permitted to continue was on account of the communication dated 08.01.2025 issued by the respondent No.5. In addition to that, the respondent No.5 had also issued another communication on the 27.01.2025 whereby directions were issued to the respondent No.6 to nullify the entire selection process on the basis of which the petitioner was appointed. These two communications dated 08.01.2025 and 27.01.2025 are the subject matters of challenge in the present proceedings. However, it appears that the respondent No.5 having realized that that the respondent No.5 had no authority in view of the Assam Chief Judicial Magistrates Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1987 and more particularly, when Rule 2(1)(b) had recalled those communications dated 08.01.2025 and 27.01.2025. Page No.# 6/6 9. Under such circumstances, therefore, nothing much remains to be decided in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands closed thereby directing the respondents, more particularly, the respondent No.7 to give due effect to the appointment order dated 30.12.2024 issued to the petitioner. 10. With the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Shivani Gautam Digitally signed by Shivani Gautam Date: 2025.12.05 16:40:43 +05'30'