Libertatem Magazine

Gauhati High Court Settles Case Regarding Unjustified Appointment Against a Desired and Deserving Job Applicant

Contents of this Page


The Petitioner is an aspirational employee who had filed a complaint that the post of Shayak under APDCL  under Kokrajhar Electrical Circle was wrongly given to the Respondents as the Petitioner was the deserving candidate according to the examination procedure.


The Petitioner had enrolled himself as a desirable candidate for the job of shayak in the Electrical Circle Office of the Respondent nos. 2 to 7. The Petitioner was called for the physical fitness test scheduled on 22.07.2013 and 23.07.2013 at Dwimalu Field, near Kokrajhar S.P. Office, Kokrajhar and after successful completion of the test, the petitioner had appeared for an interview for engagement as Trainee Sahayak on 25.07.2013 and 26.07.2013 in the office of the General Manager, Guwahati Zone, APDCL. Whereas without the due process of selection list or any solid justification they cancelled the scheduled interview and instead scheduled a  re-examination. Afterwards via advertisement the respondent no. 4 published the selection list for candidates Training Sahayak selected for engagement in the seven Circles under Guwahati Zone, viz., Guwahati Electrical Circle-I, Guwahati Electrical Circle-II, Rangia Electrical Circle, Mangaldoi Electrical Circle, Barpeta Electrical Circle, Bongaigaon Electrical Circle, and Kokrajhar Electrical Circle. According to the said Select List, out of 73 chose up-and-comers regarding Kokrajhar Electrical Circle, the class-wise selection was as per the following, viz., 40 (open), 20 (OBC), 7 [ST(P)], 5 (SC), 1 [ST(H)] and none (PH).

Arguments made on behalf of the Petitioner

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has stated that despite the candidate scoring 74 out of 100 and being on rank 16 of the merit list, The Respondent nos. 8 to 27 got selected even after scoring lesser marks than the petitioner. Furthermore, the counsel submitted that Respondent nos. 25, 26, and 27 were not on the merit list, but their names got included in the impugned select list. The Petitioner also raised the issue that a few reserved categories candidates got selected under the unreserved candidate list. Another submission made by learned counsel stated that  53 out of 73 selected candidates had not submitted an experience certificate issued by a power utility company. Consequently claimed that the experience certificate submitted by the Respondents was invalid so the selection of the private Respondents is liable to be set aside.

Arguments made on behalf of the Respondent

The learned counsel for Respondent stated that the has submitted that as per the employment advertisement, it was provided that two categories of candidates were eligible to apply, being one was made as Category-A: for candidates having ITI certificate, and another one was Category-B: temporary workers engaged in any power utility to work as Sahayak. The learned counsel pointed that the Petitioner was the holder of the ITI certificate and belongs to Category-A to not challenge the appointment made to the private Respondents under Category-B.  Learned counsel clarified that the merit list was made invalid as it had mistakes that needed correction. The counsel further submitted various records showing the validity of the selections of Respondents. learned senior counsel pleads that the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground that all the selected candidates had not been impleaded.

Court’s Decision

After reviewing the arguments made on behalf of the Petitioner and Respondent, the Court stated that on a perusal of the documents annexed to the connected writ petition, evidently, the workers engaged by such a third party had obtained experience certificates duly counter-signed by the AGM concerned. Therefore realized that Respondent no. 2 to 7 has enough liberty to appoint private Respondent nos. 8 to 27 based on certificates counter-signed by the AGM, which was as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 09.04.2013. Moreover, it was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Lastly, the court dismissed the writ petition by stating that the present section process and appointment of private Respondent nos. 8 to 27 failed.

Click here to view full judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also 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