Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010228002022 2026:GAU-AS:8650 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7409/2022 BILAY DEB S/O- DIPAK DEB, CHURCH ROAD, P.O. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ, PIN- 788710, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PANJABARI JURIPAR GUWAHATI-781037 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G GOSWAMI, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 15/06/2026 Heard Mr. G Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to appoint him against the posts of Accredited Engineer on contractual basis, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.08.2017. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that in pursuance to an advertisement dated 14.08.2017, issued by the Commissioner, Panchayat & Rural Development, Assam, inviting applications amongst others for 1850 nos. of Accredited Engineer for engagement on contractual basis under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin), the petitioner had submitted his application in the matter. 4. The petitioner on being found to have satisfied the eligibility criterias set out for the post of Accredited Engineer, was permitted to take part in the selection process. 5. The petitioner projects that he had cleared the written examination segment of the selection process. Thereafter, the petitioner not being called for document verification, had submitted an application, invoking the provisions of Page No.# 3/5 the RTI Act, 2005, seeking information. 6. The respondent authorities had furnished the said information to the petitioner, vide a communication dated 27.10.2022 and therein, it was highlighted that the petitioner had scored only 23 marks in the written examination for the post of Accredited Engineer. It was further projected that out of the 1850 posts of Accredited Engineer as advertised, only 1740 posts of Accredited Engineer were filled up. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 8. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that from the RTI reply furnished to the petitioner, it is clear that there was no individual evaluation/marking-sheet for each of the candidates and accordingly, he submits that the 23 marks as stated to have been scored by the petitioner in the written examination, is a projection made beyond the records. Accordingly, he submits that all the 1850 posts of Accredited Engineer not being filled up, this Court would be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against any of the remaining vacant posts of Accredited Engineer. 9. Per contra, Mr. Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, has submitted that the petitioner, having scored only 23 marks in the written examination, he was placed at merit position No. 3934 in the list of candidates, who had participated in the written examination, so held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.08.2017. He submits that 1740 posts of Accredited Engineer were filled up on the basis of merit, subject to application of the provisions of reservation, as applicable in the State. He Page No.# 4/5 submits that the marks scored by the petitioner not having brought him within the merit position, mandating appointment against the 1740 posts of Accredited Engineer filled up, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, would not mandate an acceptance by this Court. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The fact that the petitioner had scored 23 marks in the written examination, is not disputed by the parties to the proceedings. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner had raised a plea to the effect that in the RTI Reply, as furnished to the petitioner, there was a stipulation made that there was no individual evaluation/marking-sheet for the candidates. The said aspect of the matter was clarified by Mr. Dutta, learned Standing counsel, P&RD Department, by submitting that the selection was based solely on the marks scored by the candidates in the written examination and further that the selection was only limited to the said written examination, followed by document verification. Accordingly, he submits that there would arise no occasion for preparation of any individual marking-sheet in respect of the candidates, as there was no interview held in the matter. 13. The petitioner, basing on the marks scored by him in the selection process, is found to have been placed at serial No. 3934 on merits. 1740 posts of Accredited Engineer is found to have been filled up, basing on the merits of the candidates obtained in the selection process, after applying the provisions of reservation, as applicable. The petitioner has not brought on record any material to dispute the marks scored by him in the written examination. Page No.# 5/5 14. Accordingly, it is found from the materials coming on record that the petitioner in view of his performance in the written examination was not placed within the merit position, mandating his appointment against the 1740 posts of Accredited Engineer filled up on contractual basis, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.08.2017. 15. The further claim of the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of his case against the remaining vacant posts of Accredited Engineer, this Court finds that the respondent authorities had limited the appointment only to 1740 posts of Accredited Engineer and even if a direction is to be issued for consideration of the case of the petitioner against the remaining vacant posts as advertised, the petitioner still would not come within the merit position, inasmuch as, he is found to be placed at Serial No. 3934 on merits. 16. 16. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant