Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010271532025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/54/2026 MD. SHAHIDUL ISLAM S/O- MAHMUD ALI, R/O- MOIRABARI, P.O. AND P.S. MOIRABARI, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782126. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF CONSUMERS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, NEW DEHLI, PIN- 110001. 2:THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CUM CHAIRMAN BARAKHAMBA ROAD NEW DEHLI PIN -110001. 3:THE ZONAL OFFICE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE ZONAL MANAGER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 4:THE REGIONAL OFFICE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER (REGION) PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781008. 5:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (REGION) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Page No.# 2/6 REGIONAL OFFICE PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN - 781008. 6:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (NE) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NORTH EAST ZONE UNDER THE ZONAL OFFICE PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781008. 7:THE AREA MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DISTRICT OFFICE- HAIBORGAON NH- 37 NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782002. 8:THE MANAGER (GENERAL) DEPOT IN- CHARGE GOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA FOOD SUPPLY DEPOT (FSD) SENCHOWA NAGAON ASSAM 9:THE GENERAL MANAGER (REGION) FCI REGIONAL OFFICE ASSAM REGION PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI PIN- 781008 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the petitioner (s) : Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, CGC Mr. B. K. Singh, SC, FCI Page No.# 3/6 Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 27.01.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. B. K. Singh, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 8. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.09.2022 whereby the General Manager (Region) of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) had rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the recruitment/appointment to the category of Group III/IV posts in the FCI is done through open competitive examination with specific advertisement issued for such appointment as per the recruitment rules. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was Page No.# 4/6 engaged in the category of Group III in the FSD, Senchowa sometime in the year 2013 and the petitioner thereupon has been rendering continuous service. The petitioner has submitted representations before the Respondent Authorities for regularizing the services of the petitioner. However, as the representation submitted by petitioner was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 2309/2022. 4. The further facts of the case as is apparent from the records is that on 01.04.2022, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the General Manager (Region) FCI, Regional Office to examine the petitioner's representation dated 02.08.2018 and to take a decision on the same in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent Authorities in the FCI, more particularly the respondent No.9 had passed the impugned order dated 03.09.2022 whereby the petitioner's representation was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is seeking appointment in the FCI for the category-III/category-IV post. However, the recruitment/appointment to the category- III/category-IV post in the FCI is done through open competitive examination with specific advertisement issued for such appointment as per the recruitment rules. It is also mentioned Page No.# 5/6 that the petitioner may apply for any of the advertised posts whenever such advertisement is issued subject to meeting the eligibility criteria for the post. It is also categorically mentioned in the order dated 03.09.2022 that the petitioner was never employed by the Corporation in any capacity whatsoever and there had never been any employer/employee relationship. 5. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. The enclosures to the writ petition, nowhere show that the petitioner was issued any appointment letter by the FCI at any point of time. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to take note of that the respondents in the FCI vide the impugned order dated 03.09.2022 categorically stated that the recruitment/appointment to the category-III/IV post in the FCI is done through open competitive examination with specific advertisement. Under such circumstances, any direction(s) if passed by this Court to regularize the services of the petitioner would be in the teeth of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (3), reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. 6. Additionally, this Court taking into account that nothing has been produced to the effect that the petitioner was issued any appointment letter by the respondent FCI, do not find the Page No.# 6/6 present case to be a fit case for entertaining. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. Needless to mention that the dismissal of the writ petition however shall not prejudice the petitioner to apply for any post advertised by the FCI subject to the petitioner meeting the eligibility criteria. JUDGE Comparing Assistant