Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010009062014 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2275/2014 BUHUM KR. BRAHMA AND 39 ORS S/O- LT. RAJENDRA NATH BRAHMA, R/O VILL- BHATARMARI, DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM. 2: URKRANG CHARD BRAHMA S/O- NIRANJAN KUMAR BRAHMA R/O VILL- BHATARMARY WARD NO. 2 P.O. AND P.S.- KOKRAJHAR DIST.- KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 3: DIMBESHWAR BASUMATARY S/O- SHIBSHARAN BASUMATARY R/O VILL. BHATIPARA P.O. KOKRAJHAR DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 4: HAGRASHA MUCHAHARY S/O- LT. GOBINDA MUSHAHARY R/O VILL- BHATIPARA DIST. KOKRAJHAR 5: ANANDA MASHAHARY S/O- PRONOY MASHAHARY R/O VILL- BHATIPARA P.O. AND P.S. KOKRAJHAR DIST. KOKRAJHAR 6: SUSHANTA DAIMARY S/O- BICHARAN DAIMARY R/O VILL- PARAUGURI P.O. SASHAGAON KOKRAJHAR BTC Page No.# 2/15 7: PRINKU NARZARY S/O- TENZING NARZARY R/O VILL- NORTH NARABARI P.O. AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 8: DAOGASAT BASUMATARY S/O- BASURAM BASUMATARY P.O. DOLOGAON P.S. BASUGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR (BTC) 9: NEWTON GAYARY S/O- BALICHARAN GAYARY R/O VILL.- KATHALGURI 10: MUDHU GOYARY S/O- KOKA RAM GOYARY R/O VILL.- CHOTO KURSHAKATI P.O. DOLOGAON P.S. BASUGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 11: RAJIB BASUMATARY S/O- MEGENDRA BASUMATARY P.O. GENDRABIL DIST.-KOKRAJHAR 12: DAYARAM BRAHMA S/O- SITANATH BRAHMA R/O VILL.- LALMATI P.O. KALIPHURY DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 13: CHAKRALAL BASUMATARY S/O- CHONTOLA BASUMATARY R/O VILL.- CHOTO KURSAKATI P.O. DOLOGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR 14: SWGWMDAO NARZARY S/O- PRANAY NARZARY R/O VILL.- KATHALGURI DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 15: BIRKHWDAO ISLARY S/O- LT. SUNILAL ISLARY Page No.# 3/15 P.S. P.O. AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 16: AKON CH. ROY S/O- NAGEN CH. ROY P.O. KALIPUKHURI DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 17: MRIDULAL BASUMATARY S/O- LATE AMARENDRA NATH BASUMATARY R/O VILL.- GOSSAIGAON RAJAPARA DIST.- KOKRAJHAR (BTC) 18: SANTASH BASUMATARY S/O- LT. MAJENDRA BASUMATARY R/O VILL.- DILOGAON P.O. DOLOGAON DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 19: KRISHNA BARMAN S/O- LT. SASHI MOHAN BARMAN C/O- MOHAN BASI BARMAN R/O VILL.- SANKAR PARA P.O. CHITHILA P.S. FAKIRAGRAM DIST. KOKRAJHAR 20: DAWHASING BRAHMA S/O- JOY PRAKASH BRAHMA R/O VILL.- BORO BHATARMARI WARD NO. 2 P.O. AND P.S. KOKRAJHAR 21: BISHNU MUSHAHARY S/O- LT. NIKHIL MUSHAHARY R/O VILL.- BANGLABARI P.O. DALOABARI P.S. AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 22: JANAK KR. BASUMATARY S/O- AKHARU BASUMATARY P.O. BHALUKMARI P.S. DOTMA DIST. KOKRAJHAR 23: JOYPRAKASH BRAHMA S/O- LT. UKIL CH. BRAHMA P.O. BANARGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR Page No.# 4/15 24: CHANDAN KR. BRAHMA S/O- LT. UKIL CH. BRAHMA R/O VILL. BANARGAON P.O. BANARGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR 25: MANESWAR BASUMATARY S/O- HAKIM BASUMATARY R/O VILL.- TAKTARA P.O. BANARGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR 26: GOBINDA BASUMATARY S/O- LOCHAN BASUMATARY VILL.- BANARGAON P.O. BANARGAON P.S. DOTMA DIST. KOKRAJHAR 27: JAGANNATH NARZARY S/O- LT. KABINDRA NARZARY R/O VILL.- TILAPARA P.O. RANGALIKHATA DIST. KOKRAJHAR 28: SURAJ KUMAR RAY S/O- BABU RAM RAY R/O VILL.- SALAKATI P.O. SALAKATI DIST. KOKRAJHAR 29: AJOY BORO S/O- SISHIR BORO R/O VILL.- DOLGAON P.O. DOLGAON P.S. AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 30: RAJIB KUMAR BRAHMA S/O- LT. TIKESWAR BRAHMA R/O VILL.- BATA BARI P.O.- DOTMA DIST. KOKRAJHAR 31: JANGILA BRAHMA S/O- BEIRENDRA BRAHMA R/O VILL.- WEST DANGARKUTI DIST. KOKRAJHAR Page No.# 5/15 32: JAGADEV BORO S/O- DUDHESWAR BORO R/O VILL.- SHIALMARI P.O. DALOABARI DIST. KOKRAJHAR 33: PRAKASH RAY S/O- PROTAP RAY R/O VILL.- PURNI P.O.- KACHAKHANA P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DHUBRI 34: AJIT MUCHAHARY S/O- LT. ANTI RAM MUCHAHARY R/O VILL.- NORTH GHOSHKATA P.O. BANAR GAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR 35: PARMESWAR BARMAN S/O- BASUDEV BARMAN R/O VILL.- GOGLAPARA P.O. BASUGAON DIST.- CHIRANG 36: SAFIKUL ISLAM S/O- MEHBUB ALI R/O VILL.- SALAKATI P.O.- SALAKATI DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 37: DANSWRANG BASUMATARY S/O- BIKASH CHANDRA BASUMATARY R/O VILL.- PAKIRGURI P.O.- RANGALIKHATA KOKRAJHAR 38: UMANANDA MUSHAHARY S/O- BHUBAN MOHAN MUSHAHARY R/O VILL. AND P.O.- DALOABARI DIST.- KOKRAJHAR Page No.# 6/15 39: SWRANG BASUMATARY S/O- JWNGBLAO BASUMATARY R/O VILL.- BORAGARI P.O.- DOTMA DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 40: CHANAKYA BRAHMA S/O- RIJENDRA NATH BRAHMA VILL.- HATIMATHA W. NO. 8 P.O. AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR PIN- 78337 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 12 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, POWER AND ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN, APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN GUWAHATI-01 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (HR) ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED BIJULI BHAWAN GUWAHATI-01 4:SUPRIYA BASUMATARY S/O- BIPLAB BASUMATARY R/O VILL.- KOKLINGBARI P.O.- BINYAKHATA P.S.- GOSSAIGAON KOKRAJHAR ASSAM Page No.# 7/15 5:GOUTAM DEY S/O- LT. NETAJI CHANDRA DEY R/O VILL.- KALDOBA PART-I P.O.- AGOMANI P.S.- GOLAKGANJ DHUBRI ASSAM 6:MANESWAR DAS S/O- LT. CHIKANTU DAS R/O VILL.- DHOPERTAL P.O.- FAKIRAGRAM P.S.- FAKIRAGRAM DIST.- KOKRAJHAR 7:GOPAL SINGHA S/O- LT. SHOROBINDU SINGHA R/O VILL.- BHAKAY GAON DHAPAR DIST.- DHUBRI 8:JIDDHAN NATH S/O- LT. NEPAL CHANDRA NATH R/O VILL.- BAHALPUR NATHPARA P.O.- BAHALPUR P.S.- CHAPAR 9:MRINAL CHANDRA RAY S/O- RAMESH CHANDRA RAY R/O VILL.- DEBOTTAR HASDA PT-I P.O.- DEBOTTAR HASDA P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM 10:TUKAN KUMAR SHIL S/O- LT. SHYAM PADA SHIL R/O VILL.- JAYPUR P.O.- TULSIBIL DIST.- KOKRAJHAR Page No.# 8/15 11:PITAM KAKATI S/O- KHARGESWAR KAKATI R/O VILL.- CHAPAR COLONY WARD NO. 3 P.O.- CHAPAR DIST.- DHUBRI 12:MAHESH CH. ROY S/O- KANAK CH. ROY R/O VILL.- MAYNARIAL P.O.- FAKIRAGRAM DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM 13:UKIL ROY S/O- BHAGARI ROY VILL.- KHERAJ DAOBHANGI P.O.- RUPSI P.S.- GAURIPUR DHUBRI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.G SOREN, MS.M DEKA,MR.J SARMA,MR. K N CHOUDHURY,MR. J PATOWARY,MS. R KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Shri J. Patowary, Advocate Advocates for respondents : Shri S. P. Sharma, SC, APDCL. Date of hearing : 06.03.2025 & 11.03.2025 Date of judgement : 20.03.2025 Page No.# 9/15 JUDGMENT & ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief: “ In the premises aforesaid it is therefore humbly prayed that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue Rule calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of: (i) Certiorari shall not be issued to cancel/set aside the entire selection/appointment process in pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.04.2013. (ii) Mandamus shall not be issued directing the Respondent company to prepare the second select list in equal proportion amongst the ITI qualified candidate and the Muster Roll candidates. -AND- After cause or causes being shown and after perusal of materials on record, and upon hearing the parties be pleased to pass such further order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper to give complete relief's to the petitioners. -AND- Pending disposal of the matter your Lordships be pleased to stay the appointments made on the basis of selection made in pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2013 for the post of SAHAYAKS and further direct the respondent company to modify the selection list in equal proportion amongst the ITI qualified candidates and Muster Roll candidates and/or pass Page No.# 10/15 such further order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper to give complete relief to the petitioners. And for this act of your kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” 2. The facts projected in the petition, in a nutshell is that a recruitment drive was made for filling up of the post of Sahayaks by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (hereinafter APDCL) which was initiated vide an advertisement published on 09.04.2013. The petitioners who are 40 in nos. are concerned with the 73 nos. of posts of Sahayaks under the Kokrajhar Electrical Circle. It is the case of the petitioners that they had participated in the said recruitment process and were not selected. The ground of challenge is that there was violation in the recruitment process by which the petitioners were wrongly left out in the selection process. 3. I have heard Shri J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL. 4. Shri Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the advertisement dated 09.04.2013 has submitted that for filling up of the aforesaid post of Sahayaks, there were two sources, namely, ITI Diploma and In-house personnel (Muster Roll Workers). He has submitted that the vacancies should be filled up in the ratio 50:50 which has not been done. It is contended that the private respondents have secured lesser marks than the petitioners and in spite of the same, they have been selected. So far as the petitioner no. 17 is concerned, there is an additional ground of challenge that he belongs to the PwD category and suffers from 63% disability and in the impugned recruitment Page No.# 11/15 process, there was no reservation for PwD mentioned. 5. Referring to the Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2008 which has been annexed to the additional affidavit filed on 31.07.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the ratio contemplated for such recruitment from ITI Diploma Holders and Departmental candidates is 50:50. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the tabulation sheets and has shown that the marks secured by the private respondents are lesser than those secured by the petitioners. 6. As regards the petitioner no. 17, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the certificate dated 28.05.2006 issued whereby it has been certified that the percentage of disability is 60%. He has clarified that the reservation for PwD as per the then existing Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 the reservation should not be less than 3%. 7. As regards the notices to the private respondents, the learned counsel has submitted that vide order dated 20.12.2022 passed by this Court, the petitioners were allowed to make paper publication as all the selected candidates were not made parties. He has also referred to the additional affidavit filed on 19.02.2024 in proof of such paper publication. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that the selection and appointment of the private respondents be interfered with and a direction be issued for appointment of the petitioners. He has also submitted that as on the year 2015, 130 nos. of vacancies in the post of Sahayaks were Page No.# 12/15 still existing and the cases of the petitioners can be considered even now. So far as the elapse of a considerable length of time is concerned, the learned counsel has submitted that the impugned process of recruitment was of the year 2013 and the select list was published in the year 2014 which was immediately put to challenge in the present writ petition. 9. Per Contra, Shri Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, APDCL has submitted that the very foundation of the challenge is fallacious. He submits that the ground of challenge is based on the presumption that the marks obtained by the petitioners were more than the marks obtained by the private respondents. He has also clarified that the procedure adopted for the selection was strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Office Memorandum dated 02.04.2013 which were holding the field. 10. By drawing the attention to the additional affidavit filed by the APDCL on 27.02.2023 the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as per the OM holding the field, there were two categories, namely, category A pertaining to ITI Diploma Holders and category B pertaining to Departmental candidates. He has submitted that the marking patterns were different so as to arrive at a standardized marks and the select list prepared was one combined select list. 11. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the select list with the marks which have been produced by the petitioners and annexed to the writ petition is not correct. By producing the records in original, he has submitted that the actual marks are different than those projected by the petitioners and from the actual mark-sheets, it would be evident that the petitioners had secured marks less than that of the private respondents. He has drawn the Page No.# 13/15 attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit dated 27.02.2023 with regard to the preparation of the select list. 12. He has also referred to the order dated 19.01.2023 of this Court as per which the records which were produced were permitted for inspection by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has also produced before this Court the acknowledgement of receipt given by the learned counsel for the petitioners whereby it is certified that the records were perused. 13. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused. 14. The challenge in the present petition is with regard to the aspect of the selection of the private respondents over the claim of the petitioners. It is projected that the marks obtained by the petitioners were more than that of the private respondents. There is however no challenge to the procedure adopted for the said selection. 15. The advertisement dated 09.04.2013 read with the Office Memorandum dated 02.04.2013 would reveal that the recruitment would be made from two sources, namely, ITI Diploma Holders and In-house candidates. The said OM would also reveal that a detailed procedure was laid down regarding the selection to be made in which there were two categories, namely, Category A- ITI Diploma Holders and Category B- Departmental candidates. It is not in dispute that the petitioners belong to category A and the private respondents are mainly Departmental candidates. As per the said OM, the marking patterns were however different for the two categories which has been explained to be Page No.# 14/15 made to come to a standard marking as the aspect of allotting marks would be different for the two categories. 16. There being no dispute to the aspect of the categorization of the two sources and the marking pattern, it would be now required to go to the principal ground of challenge, namely, the claim of the petitioners that they had secured more marks than the private respondents. While the petitioners have annexed a mark-sheet containing respective marks, the Standing Counsel of the APDCL has produced the original records which have been carefully perused. From the records, it reveal that the mark-sheet relied upon by the petitioners is not correct and not a copy of the original mark-sheets. The original mark sheets would show that the marks obtained by the petitioners are less than those obtained by the private respondents. As noted above, the access to the records were directed to be given by this Court and on 19.01.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioners had inspected the records and had given a certificate to that effect. 17. This Court has carefully looked into the original records produced and has noted that the mark-sheets produced by the petitioners is actually not the copy of the original mark-sheets. The original mark-sheets have been carefully scrutinized with the marks obtained by the petitioners vis-a-vis those obtained by the private respondents and it is clear that none of the selected candidates had obtained lesser marks than the petitioners. The basis of the present challenge being fallacious and founded on an incorrect mark-sheet, this Court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. As regards the plea that vacancies were still existing, apart from such status being of the year 2015, no Mandamus can be issued to fill up any vacancies from an earlier select Page No.# 15/15 list as the same would amount to depriving the candidates who have, in the meantime become eligible. 18. As regards the contention that the petitioner no. 17 belongs to the category of PwD, the pleadings in the writ petition are inadequate vis-à-vis the selected candidates on the aspect as to whether any of them belonged to the said category. Be that as it may, it is expected that in all recruitments, the law regarding giving equal opportunities to PwD be followed strictly. 19. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. 20. The original records are handed over back to Shri Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel. JUDGE Comparing Assistant