Arup Jyoti Gogoi vs State Of Assam And 5 Ors

Heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 7227/2013 and MR. SJ Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.4525/2014.

By WP(C) No.7227/2013, the recommendation of the respondent No.6 therein namely Rupak Ranjan Bora in the District Level Committee meeting held on 01.03.2007, was assailed. By the other writ petition being WP(C) No.4525/2014 of the same writ petitioner, the appointment order dated 06.12.2013 of the respondent No.7 therein namely Rupak Ranjan Bora has been assailed.

In the order dated 13.11.2019, while the matter was given a consideration, it transpired that although a meeting of the DLC was held on 01.03.2007, but the actual recommendation was deferred and was made in the meeting of the DLC held on 09.07.2007. Accordingly, by the order of 13.11.2019, the records of the minutes of the DLC held on 09.07.2007 was called for. When the matter was taken up today, the records of the DLC is made available before the Court.

The inter-se comparison made by the DLC between the petitioner Arup Jyoti Gogoi and the respondent No.6/7 Sri Rupak Ranjan Bora are as follows:-

Sl No

Details of the Applicant

A. Name:

B. Date of birth:

C. Caste:

D.Date of Application:

E.Father/husband's name

Economic status of the deceased family:-

A. Total members in the family

B. How many are employed in Govt./Private Service

C. Total landed property:-

D.Total annual income from all sources including pension/Gratuity etc:

3

Selected

A. Sri Rupak Ranjan Bora

B. 1-2-1985

C.O.B.C

D.28-9-04

E.Late Nobin Bora

(Father), S.A.

A. 4(four) nos

B. Nil

C. Not Known

Gratuity= Rs.1,41,000.00

Annual family pension =Rs.60,000.00

Annual income from other sources = Rs.30,000.00

7

Non Selected

A. Sri Arup Jyoti Gogoi

B.24-2-1978

C.OBC

D.12-1-2006

E.Late Giridhor Gogoi

(Father), Section Asstt

A. 3(three) nos

B. One member is employed in service

C. Not Known

D.

Gratuity=1,37,942.00

Annual family pension= Rs.35,400.00

Annual income from other sources = Rs.56,400.00

An examination of the financial comparison shows that while the selected candidate Rupak Ranjan Bora had the benefit of Gratuity of Rs.1,41,000/-, Annual Family Pension of Rs.60,000/- and Annual Income from other sources of Rs.30,000/-, the petitioner Arup Jyoti Gogoi had the benefit of Gratuity of Rs.1,37,942/-, Annual Family Pension of Rs.35,400/- and Annual Income from other sources at Rs.56,400/-.

In the aforesaid financial comparison, the DLC took a decision in favour of the respondent No.6/7 Rupak Ranjan Bora. Although the annual family pension of petitioner Arup Jyoti Gogoi appears to be less than the respondent No.6/7 Rupak Ranjan Bora, but in respect of the annual income from other sources, the respondent No.6/7 Rupak Ranjan Bora has an income of Rs.30,000/- whereas the petitioner Arup Jyoti Gogoi has an annual income of Rs.56,400/-.

A view had been taken by the DLC as regards the financial comparison and upon examining the records, we do not find any reason to substitute our view against the view taken by the DLC. From the said point of view, we do not find it to be a fit case for interfering with the recommendation made by the DLC in favour of the respondent No.6/7 Rupak Ranjan Bora.

Further, we also take note of the fact that the recommendations were made on 09.07.2007, whereas the writ petition WP(C) No.7227/2013 was filed on 09.12.2013 whereas the WP(C) No.4525/2014 was filed on 01.09.2014. The cause of action for filing both the writ petitions arose in the year 2007, whereas they were filed respectively in the year 2013 and 2014.

The aspect of delay in filing a writ petition had been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 272/2018 in its judgment and order dated 09.12.2019, wherein a distinction had been made between a decision, which results in a continuous wrong giving rise to a recurring cause of action and the decision that if assailed after a reasonable delay would have the effect of causing confusion and public inconvenience and also injustice on third parties. It was held that the delay caused due to a continuous wrong giving rise to recurring cause would entail the entertainment of a writ petition, whereas the decision having the effect of causing confusion and public inconvenience and also injustice of third parties would have to be rejected.

In the instant case, we find that the delay of six years is not due to any continuous wrong giving rise to a recurring cause of action. From the said point of view also, we find the writ petitions to be not maintainable.

For both the reasons stated above, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.

The records stand returned to the respondents.