High CourtsDivision Bench(2016) 05 GAU CK 0068

Khetradhar Gogoi vs Chariman-cum-managing Director

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 26 May 2016 · Citation: (2016) 4 GauLJ 574 : (2016) 4 GauLR 670

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mr. Ajit Singh, C.J. and Mr. Suman Shyam, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
WA No. 376 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 275 words

Ajit Singh, C.J. :- None appears for the appellant. Mr. SN Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for respondents.

This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 20.11.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby he has dismissed appellant�s WP(C) No.1169/2008.

2.

The appellant has retired from Air Force and was sponsored by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Office, Dibrugarh for the post of Junior Engineer in Oil India Limited. On 16.7.2006, appellant appeared in the written test along with other candidates and after having qualified in this segment, he was called for interview on 13.9.2006. The Oil India Limited notified the result of selection on 7.5.2007, wherein the name of appellant was not reflected in the list of selected candidates. Aggrieved, the appellant challenged the selection process by filing WP(C) No.1169/2008 after 10 months on the ground that some of the available posts should have been earmarked for Ex-servicemen by the Oil India Limited. The learned Single Judge disagreed with the appellant and dismissed the writ petition.

3.

Admittedly, appellant participated in the selection process without any protest and belatedly challenged the process of selection after he failed to qualify. Also, the appellant knew from day one that no posts were reserved for Ex-servicemen and therefore, he took a chance to get recruited as a general candidate. The Oil India Limited was entitled to stipulate the cut off marks for recruitment test, which appellant could not achieve. The recruitment was not against any earmarked vacancy for Ex-servicemen but against general vacancy.

4.

For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.