Libertatem Magazine

Gauhati HC: No Discrimination Done By Power Company‘s Authority in Appointment Process

Contents of this Page

The Petitioner in the case of Sukur Ali Vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and State of Assam claimed that the selection committee of APDCL was biased but the court held the judgement in the favour of APDCL and gave them clean chit.

Facts of the case

The petitioner completed the course of Industrial Training Institute of Government of Assam and passed the required test for the job in the trade of electrician. He comes under unreserved category. There was an advertisement inviting applications to fill the vacancy on 1064 posts of Sahayak under APDCL out of which 73 seats belongs to Kokrajhar Electrical Circle. The petitioner filed for a post in Electrical Circle Office. Even though he was eligible on all grounds but yet he didn’t get the job. Thus, the petitioner filed an appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution against APDCL authorities seeking the job.

Arguments of the Petitioners’

The appellant’s counsel argued that the petitioner received the call for physical test and after passing it got a call for the interview. However, without publishing any selection list and without assigning any reasons the interview was cancelled and he was asked to reappear for the physical test. The persons who got much less marks and were below him in the merit list got the job. They had even submitted the experience certificates after the deadline. Few OBC candidate were selected under un-reserved category.

Arguments of the Defendants’

The defendant had argued that the appointment was done under two categories –A) for candidates having ITI certificate and B) for experienced candidates engaged in any Power Utility Company and as the petitioner belonged to category A, he cannot challenge the employment of category B . Also, the first physical test was cancelled due to some reasons and the merit list was not correct and thus was replaced. Also, the plea is not maintainable due to  non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.

Court’s opinion

The High Court opined that as per the records there are two merit lists, one with word ‘Experience’ which was complete and other ‘ITI’ which is incomplete. As vacancy was not determined separately for Category-A and Category-B according to the advertisement, the writ petition would be maintainable.

Further, the petitioner was relying on the cancelled list and in the actual list he scored less than all who were selected. Hence, there was no discrimination against him. Also, the OBC candidate that got the job have scored more marks than any candidate in un-reserved category so it is fair. Citing all these reasons, the court dismissed the writ petition.

click here to read the full judgement is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author