Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7697 (GAU)

SATYAJIT CHOUDHURY v. THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS.

WP(C)/4517/2017 · 2025-02-17

Suman Shyam

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010032442017 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4517/2017 SATYAJIT CHOUDHURY S/O BHAGABAN CHOUDHURY VILL- BARBANG BAMUNPARA, P.O. BARBANG DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN - 781325 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY HRD DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE DIRECTOR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI -39 3:THE REGISTRAR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GUWAHATI-39 4:SRI DULUMONI DAS S/O UNKNOWN DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING IIT GUWAHATI -3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M KALITA, MR.J HATIMURIA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S SUTRADHARR- 2and3, MR H DAS (R-4),MR.R P KAKOTI(Sr. Adv.)(R- 2&3),SC, IIT BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM Page No.# 2/2 ORDER Date : 18/02/2025 Heard Mr.M. Kalita, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned Standing Counsel, IIT, Guwahati, appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. Mr. H. Das, learned counsel is present on behalf of the respondent no. 4. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has called into question the appointment of the respondent no. 4 in the post of Junior Technician (REG) on the ground that despite having scored higher marks than the respondent no. 4, the petitioner has not been appointed. The stand of the IIT authorities is that the respondent no. 4 being the only SC candidate, the benefit of a particular roster point was extended to him. However, subsequently, another vacancy of Junior Technician arose and, therefore, the authorities have taken a conscious decision now to issue appointment order in favour of the writ petitioner as well. Mr. Kakoti submits that within two months from today, the order of appointment will be issued in favour of the writ petitioner herein. If that be so, nothing further survives for adjudication in this case. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed to the said proposition. As such, by retaining a copy of the communication dated 17/02/2025, issued by the Registrar, IIT, Guwahati, in the file of this case, this writ petition stands closed by granting two months time to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to issue the appointment order to the writ petitioner. JUDGE Comparing Assistant