Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010043952024 2025:GAU-AS:3731 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1266/2024 ANANDA CHAKRABORTY S/O SRI DULAL CHAKRABORTY, R/O SANKARDEV NAGAR, P.O.- SANKARDEV NAGAR, P.S.-LANKA, DIST- HOJAI (ASSAM), PIN-782442 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER AND SECRETARY, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE REGISTRAR GENERAL GAUHATI HIGH COURT GUWAHATI-781001 3:SELECTION BOARD FOR RECRUITMENT OF GRADE-IV POSTS UNDER THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HOJAI HEADED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HOJAI AT SANKARDEV NAGAR P.O.-SANKARDEV NAGAR P.S.-LANKA DIST- HOJAI (ASSAM) PIN-782442 4:ARUP KALITA S/O LATE BIMAL KALITA R/O VILL- KARKASHI P.O.-DOHELA DIST- GOALPARA (ASSAM) PIN-783125 5:JINTU MAHANTA Page No.# 2/9 S/O SUKLESWAR MAHANTA R/O VILL- SUTERKUCHI SANTINAGAR P.O.-SANTINAGAR DIST- NALBARI (ASSAM) PIN-78112 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. D. P. Borah, Advocate Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. N. Kalita, Govt. Advocate Mr. H. K. Das, SC, GHC Mr. S. Rabha, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date of Hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of Judgment : 27.03.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. D. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. N. Kalita, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No.1; Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel of the Gauhati High Court appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 & 3 and Mr. S. Rabha, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the appointment of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 to the posts of Peon in Page No.# 3/9 connection with the advertisement contained in Memo No.DJHJ/21/617-620 dated 08.07.2021. 3. For the purpose of deciding as regards the challenge so made, it is relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. On 08.07.2021, an advertisement was issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Hojai inviting applications from intending eligible candidates for various posts. The post relevant for the purpose of the instant adjudication is the post of Peon. In the said advertisement, it was categorically mentioned that the requisite qualification to the said post of Peon is minimum VIII standard pass. Subsequent thereto, a Corrigendum was issued on 15.07.2021 wherein it was specified in reference to the advertisement dated 08.07.2021 that candidates who have passed H.S.S.L.C. and above shall be ineligible to apply for the post of Head Jarikarak, Jarikarak, Peon, Chowkidar and Sweeper in view of the notification dated 28.01.2016 and the notification dated 26.04.2021 of the Gauhati High Court. 4. The petitioner herein along with the respondent Nos.4 & 5 duly applied for the post of Peon. The respondent Nos.4 & 5 were selected in the selection process and an order was passed on 24.01.2022 wherein the names of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 appeared at Sl. No.3 & 4 of the order dated 24.01.2022. Subsequent thereto, on the basis of the said order, the respondent Page No.# 4/9 Nos.4 & 5 were appointed and have been discharging their duties as Peon in the establishment of the District and Sessions, Judge Hojai. 5. The petitioner who became unsuccessful in the selection proceedings initiated on the basis of the advertisement dated 08.07.2021 continued to pursue his avenues seeking employment in various other Departments. The petitioner came across a list of rejected candidates in the establishment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal wherein it came to light that the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have also applied for the post of Office Peon in the establishment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta and their candidature were rejected. 6. In the rejection list so published by the establishment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta, it was shown at Sl. No.17 that the respondent No.4’s candidature was rejected for the post of Peon on the ground that he is H.S. pass that is equivalent to H.S.S.L.C. The remarks against that entry was that the respondent No.4 was overqualified in terms with the notifications dated 28.01.2016 and 26.04.2021 of the Gauhati High Court. In respect to the respondent No.5’s candidature, he was also rejected as would transpire from Sl. No.338 of the list wherein it was mentioned that the respondent No.5 had passed B.A. and was held to be overqualified in terms with the notifications dated 28.01.2016 Page No.# 5/9 and 26.04.2021. 7. The petitioner on coming to learn about the said aspect of the matter approached this Court by filing the writ petition seeking the remedy of setting aside and cancelling the appointment of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. 8. It is seen that this Court vide an order dated 04.03.2024 issued notice. Pursuant thereto, the respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition on 13.06.2024. In the said affidavit-in- opposition, various preliminary objections were taken as regards the maintainability of the instant writ petition, viz. delay and laches on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court after 766 days and further that the petitioner was not a person aggrieved as his name was not even in the waiting list. The other official respondents however did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. 9. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 10. Mr. D. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in terms with the advertisement, the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 could not have been selected as they were overqualified, and as such, a writ of quo warranto can be issued by this Court even at the instance of any person and there is no requirement that the person has to be a person aggrieved. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had Page No.# 6/9 participated in the selection process and he had a legitimate and genuine expectation that the selection proceedings would be conducted as per the procedure mandated in the advertisement. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court in as much as immediately upon coming to learn about the rejection list so published by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta, the petitioner approached the District Legal Services Authority and thereupon his grievance having not been addressed, the petitioner has approached his Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that the respondent Nos.4 & 5 could not have been appointed to the said post of peon and they suppressed the fact that they were overqualified. 11. Mr. S. Rabha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 submitted in lines with the affidavit-in- opposition filed to the effect that the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of 766 days and on this count, the writ petition ought to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 & 5 also submitted that the present case is not a Public Interest Litigation, and as such, at the behest of the petitioner, the instant writ petition could not have been filed. 12. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing Counsel for the Page No.# 7/9 respondent Nos.2 & 3 fairly submitted that there was apparent illegality in as much as the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being overqualified, could not have been appointed to the Post of Peon in view of the corrigendum issued on 15.07.2021. 13. This Court, upon hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, had enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 as to whether they disclosed at the time of applying that they had already passed HSSLC and above. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 & 5 submitted that such disclosure was not made. 14. In the backdrop of the above analysis of the materials on record and the submissions so made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties including the fact that the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not disclose at the time of applying to the post pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.07.2021 that they were overqualified, it is the opinion of this Court that the respondent Nos.4 & 5 had suppressed this vital information before the Selection Committee which led to the passing of the impugned order dated 24.01.2022. 15. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that pursued to the advertisement dated the 08.07.2021, it was clarified by the Corrigendum dated 15.07.2021 that a person cannot apply for the post of Peon if that person has passed H.S.S.L.C. There is Page No.# 8/9 no denial to the fact as regards the rejection list published by the Motor Vehicle Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barpeta that the respondent number 4 had passed H.S. which is equivalent to H.S.S.L.C. and the respondent No.5 had passed B.A. This Court has also perused the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.4 & 5 wherein also they are absolutely silent in that regard. 16. Taking into account that the post of a Peon is a public post and in that public post, the respondent Nos.4 & 5 have been appointed de hors the advertisement and more particularly on account of suppression of material facts by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 before the Selection Committee that they were overqualified, it is the opinion of this Court that the order dated 24.01.2022 in so far as the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are concerned and all subsequent orders by which the respondent Nos.4 & 5 were issued appointment orders are nonest, null and void and accordingly interfered with and set aside. 17. This Court though has set aside the order dated 24.01.2022 as well as the consequential order by which the respondent Nos.4 & 5 were appointed, the same would not give a right upon the respondent authority to recover any amount paid to the respondent Nos.4 & 5 during the period when they were in service. 18. Taking into account the above as the posts now in view of the setting aside of the appointments of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 are Page No.# 9/9 vacant, the authorities concerned would be at liberty to proceed for selection by following the established principles and law. 19. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent as stated above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant