Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010113392015 2026:GAU-AS:4349 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/49/2015 GIRISH CH. MAHANTA and 8 ORS. S/O SIBAKANTA MAHANTA R/O KHALOIGAON P.O. GOSAIBARI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. 2: JUGEN SAIKIA S/OLT. MANESWAR SAIKIA R/O SANCHAWA HALDIAHATI VILL and P.O. SANCHAWA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. 3: MUKUT CH. MUDOI S/O LT. SITARAM MUDAOI R/O SANCHAWA HALDIAHATI VILL and P.O. SANCHAWA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM 4: MONIMOY BORA S/O LT. SOMESWAR BORA R/O ROHDHALA P.O. GOSAIBARI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. 5: PRANJAL NATH S/OLT. NARESWAR NATH R/O GHUMATIGAON P.O. KAPAHERA DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM. 6: PIJU KUMAR SAIKIA S/OLT. LAKSHIKANTA SAIKIA R/O AFLIAGURI P.O. GOSAIBARI DIST.NAGAON ASSAM. 7: TAPAN KR. MAHANTA Page No.# 2/10 S/O DEBAKANTA MAHANTA R/O AFALIAGURI P.O. GOSAIBARI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. 8: SHRI UN BORDOLOI S/O LT. LILADHAR BORDOLOI VILL- KAHIGURI P.O. GANDHIBARI P.S. RAHA DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. 9: NIPUL BORA S/O LT. BIHURAM BOR A R/O 3 NO. KAKI 3 NO. GAON P.O. and P.S. KAKI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE A DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36. 3:JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES NAGAON ASSAM P.O. and DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. 4:CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS SRIMANTA SANKARADEVA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES NARAKASUR HILLTOP BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI ASSAM. 5:DUL NATH S/O LT. SATARAN NATH R/O JAMUGURI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MRG DEKA Page No.# 3/10 Advocate for : SC HEALTH appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 24.03.2026 Heard Mr. P K Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. 2. The petitioner, by instituting the present writ petition, have assailed the selection and appointment effected, in respect of vacant post of Surveillance Workers, identified in the Districts of Morigaon and Nagaon, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.12.2013. The petitioners, herein, have projected that they were initially engaged as Surveillance Workers in the district of Morigaon, sometime, during the year 2000. The recruitment process being initiated and the educational qualification mandated for being passed in Higher Secondary level examination and/or equivalent, the petitioners, not possessing the said qualification and the petitioners’ age also being above the maximum age prescribed in the recruitment process, proceedings came to be instituted before this Court. The said proceedings ultimately culminated in the proceedings of Writ Appeal No. 357/2009. The said Writ Appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.10.2012. The Division Bench of this Court, upon examining the issues arising in the said Writ Appeal, by noticing the considerable lapse of time occasioning after the initiation of the recruitment process that was questioned in the said proceedings, proceeded to direct that if fresh advertisement is issued for filling up of 85 (Eighty-Five) posts of Surveillance Workers in Morigaon and Nagaon districts, the appellants also be permitted to participate, therein, and the appellants should not be Page No.# 4/10 disqualified, if they do not possess the Higher Secondary qualification, as per the service orders holding the field. It was further stipulated that the appellants, if found to be over-aged, relaxation of such over-age, be provided. 3. In terms of the said directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court, ultimately, an advertisement dated 19.12.2013 came to be issued by the Director of Health Services, Assam, inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment against 85 (Eighty-Five) vacant posts of Surveillance Workers (Malaria) under the Directorate of Health Services, Assam. It was provided in the said advertisement that 59 (Fifty-Nine) posts, out of the advertised posts, were filled for Nagaon district and 26 (Twenty- Six) posts were filled for Morigaon district. It is to be noted that vide the said advertisement, all applicants who are domicile in the State of Assam, were made eligible to apply, provided they satisfy the other eligibility criterias. In so far as the petitioners, herein, are concerned, following the decision of the Division Bench, noticed hereinabove, they were allowed to submit their respective applications, even if they do not possess the HSSLC or its equivalent qualification. 4. The petitioners, in pursuance to the said advertisement, had participated in the selection process, however, they, not being selected, the petitioners have proceeded to join together to institute the present writ petition. 5. The petitioners, in the present writ petition, have basically assailed the selection process, by projecting that the vacancies being of Surveillance Workers in the institution under the Directorate of Health Services, situated in the districts of Morigaon and Nagaon, it was not open to the respondent authorities to proceed for recruitment against the said posts by inviting applications even from residents outside the districts of Morigaon and Nagaon. The petitioners have also highlighted that persons, who had not initially submitted their applications, in pursuance to the advertisement in Page No.# 5/10 question, were subsequently, permitted to participate in the recruitment exercise and were recruited against the vacant posts, so put up for recruitment. It is projected that although the respondents had initially contended that there were 22,000 applicants, but finally it was found that around 30,000 applicants had applied, after the issuance of the advertisement and had participated in the selection process. The further challenge to the advertisement is on the ground that persons, not having the HSSLC qualification, were permitted to participate in the selection process although they were not appellants in the Writ Appeal no. 357/2009 and/or analogous matters. 6. In this connection, the petitioners have highlighted the case of the one Biju Deka who was projected to have the qualification of HSLC only and accordingly, not eligible for participating in the selection process in as much as the exemption provided in the advertisement were only in respect of the appellants in writ appeal no. 357/2009 and 358/2009. It is contended that the said Biju Deka was not an appellant either of the two writ appeals. It is on the said basis that the present writ petition has been so instituted. 7. Mr. P K Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, as well as the grounds basing on which the challenge to the recruitment process initiated, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.12.2013, has been initiated, has submitted that the grounds, so urged, if viewed in the proper perspective, would reveal that the entire selection process stood vitiated and accordingly, the appointments effected in terms of such vitiated selection process would mandate an interference from this Court. Mr. P K Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that while the candidates, after the written examination were shortlisted for the viva voce segment of the selection process, no cut-off marks were published and accordingly, the candidates, disproportionate to the number of vacant posts available, came to be shortlisted for the purpose. Page No.# 6/10 In the above premises, Mr. P K Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present recruitment exercise would mandate an interference from this Court. 8. Mr. B Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 submits that the contentions of the petitioners that the advertisement being in respect of the vacant posts available in the districts of Morigaon and Nagaon against the post of Surveillance Workers, the applications for recruitment from amongst eligible candidates must have been limited to the residents of the 2 districts involved and it could not have been made an open selection, submits that the petitioners, pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.12.2013, had with the stipulations as set-out, therein, participated in the selection process without any objection, whatsoever. Mr. B Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that a perusal of the advertisement would reveal as the same mandated submission of applications from eligible candidates, who are domiciled in the State of Assam. Accordingly, he submits that the said contentions, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not mandate an acceptance. He further submits that candidates in the selection process were so incorporated in the select list only after a due process of selection, wherein, the petitioners had also participated. He submits that the select list was published, strictly in accordance with the merit of the candidates participating in the selection process subject, however, to the application of the reservation norms. With regard to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, by highlighting the example of one Biju Deka, who had participated in the selection process, Mr. B Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General has clarified that the said candidate was initially permitted to participate in the selection process with the HSLC qualification on a wrong impression drawn, that he was also an appellant in writ appeal nos. 357/2009 and 358/2009. However, on a scrutiny being made in the matter, the said candidate was not finally selected for an appointment Page No.# 7/10 against the advertisement of the vacant posts. 9. With regard to the projection that although initially it was declared that there were around 22,000 applications received which subsequently, was found to be increased to 30,000, Mr. B Gogoi, has clarified that initial estimate was just an approximate figure quoted by the departmental authorities, however, on a thorough calculation of the applications received, it was found that the same was in fact around 30,000. Mr. B Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General submit that the selection process was carried out after the written examination conducted by the authorities of the Srimanta Shankardeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati, was taken forward by a Selection Board constituted with the Director of Health Services, Assam, as its Chairman. He submits that the said Board also had the Joint Director of Health Services of Nagaon and Morigaon as its Members. Mr. B Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that while several vague allegations have been made in the writ petition, no allegations of malafide has been made against any of the Members of the Selection Board. 10. In the above premises, Mr. B Gogoi, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the selection and appointment as effected in the matter would not mandate an interference from this Court. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 12. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the issue arising in the present writ petition is as to whether the selection held and the consequential appointments effected against the post of Surveillance Workers, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.12.2013, would mandate an interference by this Court. The first ground of challenge by the petitioners to the selection process is that the advertisement dated 19.12.2013, being issued, in respect of the vacancies for the post of Surveillance Workers available in the districts of Nagaon and Morigaon, the same could not have been put up for recruitment even for eligible Page No.# 8/10 candidates who were not residents of the districts of Nagaon and Morigaon. The said contentions of the petitioners would not mandate acceptance, inasmuch as, in the advertisement dated 19.12.2013, it was stipulated that the eligible applicants must be a domicile of the State of Assam. Accordingly, the advertisement itself, having specified that all eligible applicants who are domiciled in the State of Assam, would be eligible to apply for the post, in question. The petitioners had not assailed the said advertisement although such stipulation was staring on the face of the said advertisement. The petitioners having participated in the selection process and the same having been taken to its logical conclusion, now cannot be permitted to resile back and assail the said stipulation made in the advertisement. Accordingly, the said ground urged by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present writ petition would not mandate an interference. 13. The second ground urged by the petitioners towards assailing the selection process is that the number of candidates initially declared to have applied in pursuance to the said advertisement dated 19.12.2013, was 22,000. However, subsequently, the departmental authorities had declared that around 30,000 applications were received in pursuance to the said advertisement. By making the said submission, the petitioners have projected that the applicants, who had not applied in pursuance to the advertisement in question, before the last date as specified, therein, for submission of applications, were permitted to participate in the selection process, subsequently, and many of such applicants came to be recruited. 14. The respondents have clarified the above position by contending that the earlier declaration of the number of applicants to be as 22,000, was on a temporary estimation made without a thorough calculation of the applications received. However, while the said process was taken forward, the number of applications on a thorough counting of the same was revealed to be 30,000. This Court finds that while the said allegation was Page No.# 9/10 made leveled by the petitioners, the petitioners have not brought on record any material to demonstrate that the candidates selected in the selection process and, thereafter, appointed, were candidates who had not applied, in pursuance to the advertisement before the last date of submission of the same. Accordingly, on the said count also the selection process would mandate an interference. 15. The third ground urged by the petitioners for assailing the said selection process held in pursuance to the advertisement in question, is that candidates, disproportionate in number to the vacant post advertisement came to be shortlisted for the purpose of the next round of the selection process i.e. the Viva Voce examination. The said contentions would not mandate an acceptance by this Court in as much as the petitioner have not brought on record, any material to demonstrate that the short-listing of the candidates, qua the vacant posts available, a particular ratio was required to be applied. In absence of such materials being brought on record by the petitioners, this Court would not proceed to interfere with the said selection process on such vague allegation being made. It is submitted that the respondent authorities had shortlisted the candidates, basing on a criteria adopted for the purpose and the petitioners also figure within the said list of shortlisted candidates for recruitment to the post of Surveillance Worker. The petitioners have further not brought on record any material to show that selection from the shortlisted candidates was so made by adopting a criteria which would give rise to an apprehension of the selection being made on a pick and choose basis. The Selection Committee, as constituted in the matter for conducting the Viva Voce segment of the selection process, is found by this Court to be a broad based one and in absence of any allegation of malafide leveled against the Members of the said Selection Committee, the selection, as conducted by them in the matter, would not mandate an interference by this Court. 16. The final ground on which the said Selection process is challenged by Page No.# 10/10 the petitioner is by referring to the case of one Biju Deka, who is contended to have been allowed to participate in the selection process without having the minimum educational qualification, as mandated in the advertisement in question. The said aspect of the matter was clarified by the respondent authorities by contending that said Biju Deka was initially allowed to participate in the selection process by drawing an impression that he was also one of the applicants in Writ Appeal nos. 357/2009 and 358/2009 like the petitioners, herein. It is further clarified that the candidature of the said Biju Deka, on being further scrutinized and it being found that he was not an appellant in the said two writ appeals, his case was not further considered in the selection process and no appointment came to be effected in his case. The contentions raised in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, have also not been disputed by the petitioners by filing a rejoinder, thereto. 17. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, this Court is of the considered view none of the grounds, urged by the petitioners, for interference with the selection process as held and the appointments effected in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.2.2013, would mandate acceptance. 18. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant