Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040013972025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/390/2025 Kime Kaing Son of Shri Kime Kaming, resident of Chandranagar, Itanagar, PO Chandranagar, PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and 2 Ors represented by the Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Itanagar. 3:Exam Superintendent Age: 0 Occupation : NERIST South Campus Opposite GREF Nirjuli Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Pondit Ronya,Kirmani Lollen,Y Mugli,Terji Kamchi,Taba Tokur,Khoda Apa,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : Ajin Apang, Sr. Advocate, S/C APPSC Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 10.09.2025 Heard Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel through RVC assisted by Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Ajing Apang, learned Senior Advocate and Standing Counsel, Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) assisted by Ms. K. Loya, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents. [2.] Although, this matter is listed in the motion column but having regard to the issue involved and the urgency expressed by the parties, the same is taken up for disposal at this stage with the consent of the parties. [3.] Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the case is that the APPSC published an Advertisement on 09.05.2025 inviting online applications from eligible candidates for admission to Arunachal Engineering Service Examination, 2025 (AESE, 2025) to fill up 166 (one hundred sixty six) posts of Assistant Engineer under various works departments of the State Government. As per the Advertisement, in case the number of applicants is more than the desired ratio, recruitment test will be conducted on 27.07.2025 which will be followed by written examination (mains) tentatively scheduled on 06th & 07th September, 2025. [4.] The petitioner responded to the Advertisement and was issued an admit card to sit in the examination scheduled for 27.07.2025. The examination comprised of morning and afternoon sessions with the timings given as 09:00 AM to 11:00 AM and 01:00 PM to 04:00 PM respectively. The petitioner sat for the examination held in the forenoon but in respect of the examination to be Page No.# 3/6 conducted in the afternoon, he was not allowed to sit for the same on the ground that he arrived late to undertake the examination. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted his representation to the respondent authorities concerned on 28.07.2025 with a reminder on 31.07.2025 but since, the same was not considered and disposed of, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 21.08.2025. [5.] Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the petitioner had entered into the gate on time and had completed biometric registration and calculated clearance for the afternoon session of the examination on 27.07.2025. After entering inside the gate, there was still a heavy rush around the biometric machine with approximately 10 (ten) candidates waiting for their turn. After waiting for his turn, the petitioner was photographed and he received his biometric registration and was issued clearance slip for the calculator. After such formalities, he was about to enter the hall but was forcefully taken outside the gate. Despite, the petitioner pleading with folded hands and requesting the Exam Superintendent to allow him to appear for the exam, he was not allowed and the petitioner stood near the gate till 04:00 PM. The learned Senior Counsel submits that lately, the respondents have surprisingly come up with the version that the petitioner along with 3 (three) others had climbed over the compound fence to enter into the venue of the examination. Considering the physical built of the petitioner and the others, it was next to impossible for them to scale the high fencing wall of the venue for the examination. [6.] The learned Senior Standing Counsel, APPSC, on 29.08.2025 had produced a video footage to show that the entry gate to the campus of the examination centre was closed at 12:45 PM. In this regard, Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel submits that the video footage does not show the Page No.# 4/6 petitioner or him scaling the compound wall/fence and therefore, the same only goes to show that the petitioner was already inside the venue by that time. [7.] The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner had done very well in the examination conducted in the forenoon and considering the fact that the AESE is being conducted after a long interval, the respondents should be directed to conduct an examination in Paper- II for the petitioner so that he can participate in the mains examination which has been postponed to 28th September, 2025. [8.] Mr. A. Apang, learned Senior Standing Counsel, APPSC, on the other hand submits that from the very date of issuance of the Advertisement, the competition has started. He submits that the admit card issued to the candidates including the petitioner clearly stipulated that they were to be in the examination venue well on time since the examination venue will be closed 15 (fifteen) minutes prior to the scheduled commencement of the examination i.e., 08:45 AM in the morning session and 12:45 PM in the afternoon session. Further, it was stated that no entry will be allowed once the gates have been closed. It was also provided that the candidates are required to be seated in their respective seats before 09:00 AM for the morning session and before 01:00 PM for the afternoon session. As for the petitioner, he did not keep up with the said timing for the afternoon session and he was late in making his entry into the Examination Hall. [9.] The learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that although the gates were closed as per the scheduled timing, the petitioner and 3 (three) others including one girl had scaled the boundary wall/fence to enter into the venue. As a result, they were not frisked while making their entry into the examination venue. He submits that the Police Personnels, who were on duty in the Page No.# 5/6 examination venue saw the petitioner and 3 (three) others climbed over the fencing wall and that their statements were recorded. Under the circumstances, the learned Senior Standing Counsel, submits that the petitioner was rightly not allowed to sit for the afternoon session of the examination and that the representation submitted by him has also been rejected vide Order dated 03.09.2025. He, thus, submits the writ petition is without merit and should be dismissed. [10.]From the above projection, it may be seen that the examination scheduled on 27.07.2025 was in the forenoon from 09:00 AM to 11:00 AM and in the afternoon from 01:00 PM to 04:00 PM. As per the admit card, entry into the examination venue was to be made at least 15 (fifteen) minutes prior to the starting of the examination. The candidates were also required to be seated in their respective seats before the scheduled time for starting the examination i.e., 09:00 AM for the morning session and 01:00 PM for the afternoon session. The learned Senior Standing Counsel, APPSC, is said to have shown the video footage of the gate leading to the campus of the examination centre on 29.08.2025 but since, the same is not available to be viewed today, this Court is not inclined to enter into this aspect. [11.]Further, the petitioner and three (3) other candidates were said to have scaled the fencing wall to enter into the examination venue and that the statements of the security personnel on duty were also recorded. However, without entering into this aspect as well, what is relevant and has to be noticed is that for the afternoon session on 27.07.2025, the recorded time of entering the biometrics of the petitioner is 01:01:24 PM and the same is not disputed by the parties. It was only thereafter that the petitioner could have proceeded to enter the Exam Hall. It therefore goes to show that the petitioner did not meet Page No.# 6/6 the requirement as was instructed to all the candidates in the admit card issued for the examination. In other words, the petitioner was not in the examination hall before 01:00 PM on 27.07.2025. If certain timing was prescribed for all the candidates sitting for the examination to follow, the same will have to be adhered to and particularly in a competition process. [12.]The contention of the petitioner that delay in reaching the Exam Hall was due to queuing up of at least ten (10) candidates before the biometric machine also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that if such be the case, the question would be how many amongst those queued up were allowed to enter and how many refused and why. It is nobody’s case that amongst those coming late some were allowed to enter while some were denied entry into the Exam Hall. It therefore cannot be said that the authorities concerned were not justified in not letting the petitioner sit for the examination in the afternoon session of the examination on 27.07.2025. [13.]Thus upon due consideration and under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to have a legitimate grievance. The writ petition is found to be without merit and accordingly dismissed but without cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant