Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010221662025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/339/2025 SRI HIMANGSHU PATHAK SON OF SRI AMIYA KUMAR PATHAK, R/O HOUSE NO 144, LOKABANDHU NAGAR, KAHILIPARA, P.O. GUWAHATI-781019, DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO, ASSAM VERSUS 1.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND 3 ORS REFINERIES AND PIPELINES DIVISION, GUWAHATI REFINERY, NOONMATI, P.O. GUWAHATI-781020 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD REFINERIES DIVISION GUWAHATI REFINERY NOONMATI P.O. GUWAHATI-781020 3:THE RECRUITMENT TEAM INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD REFINERIES AAN PIPELINES DIVISION GUWAHATI REFINERY NOONMATI P.O. GUWAHATI-781020 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN BOILER ATTENDANT EXAMINATION BOARD-CCUM-CHIEF INSPECTOR OF BOILERS P.O. GUWAHATI-781029 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. J.C. Gaur, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Deka, Advocate for IOCL. : Mr. M. Gogoi, Advocate. Page No.# 2/3 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 16.12.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. J.C. Gaur, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. N. Deka, learned Advocate for the IOCL/respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.09.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.736/2025, whereby the decision of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to non-suit the appellant has not been interfered with. 3. The appellant hails from Other Backward Classes (OBC) category and had applied against the advertisement for recruitment to non-executive posts, including the post of Junior Engineer Assistant-IV (P&U). 3(three) posts advertised were reserved for OBC category. 4. It appears that the appellant took the computer based skill test, but his marks were not considered for the reason of his not having uploaded the necessary Apprenticeship Certificate with an endorsement from the Boiler Authority of Assam, which would be equivalent to BCC 2nd Class. 5. Indisputably, the appellant had performed well and secured 66 marks out of 100 marks in the computer based skill test. Had he not Page No.# 3/3 been non-suited on technical ground, he would definitely have been selected for appointment to one of the 3(three) posts reserved for the OBC category. 6. Mr. N. Deka, learned Advocate for the IOCL, however, submits with proof that no document relating to such Apprenticeship Certificate was uploaded by the appellant and that the contention of the appellant that it was uploaded on the backside of one of the papers, which has escaped attention of the authorities, is incorrect. 7. Notwithstanding the afore-noted fact and for the present, not disputing that the necessary qualification document was not uploaded by the appellant, we deem it appropriate to direct that in view of the vacant position and the appellant having performed well in the computer based skill test and he possessing the necessary/requisite certificate, his case may be considered for accommodating him against the vacant post subject to his fulfilling all other criteria for appointment. 8. We indicate here that we have not issued any mandamus for appointing the appellant but only for consideration of his case, should the authorities/the IOCL consider it expedient for filling up the vacant post. 9. The writ appeal stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant