AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Borah, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for the respondent No. 6. Office Note dated 05.05.2025 indicates that although AD card or un-served notice has not returned back from the respondent No. 6 but on tracking the postal consignment, it is found that the item (postal consignment) has been delivered to the addressee. It, therefore, can be presumed that notice upon respondent No. 6 is complete.
[2.] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner and in view of the records produced by Mr. Borah, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.
[3.] The case of the petitioner in brief is that the respondent No. 3 had floated an Advertisement on 16.02.2023 for one post of Physiotherapist in the Central Police Hospital, PTC, Dergaon, Assam. The petitioner being interested for the said post applied for the same on 28.02.2023. The scheme of the test was that candidates would be required to sit in a common written test for a total 50 marks and there would be no negative marking. Those, who are found successful in the written test, would be called for Trade Proficiency Test (TPT) in order of merit at the rate of five (5) times the number of posts as per the vacancy.
[4.] In terms of the above scheme, a common written test was held on 09.04.2023 and the petitioner participated in the test. According to the petitioner, he performed very well and got first position. He was therefore called for the TPT. However, when he appeared for the TPT, he was not allowed to give the preference against the post which he had applied for i.e. the post of Physiotherapist. The petitioner had also applied for the post of Dresser and he was allowed to participate for the post of Dresser only in the TPT. Despite having performed well but having been denied to give his preference for the post of Physiotherapist, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
[5.] The respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have filed their counter-affidavit, wherein, it is contended that the petitioner in the written examination had secured thirty two (32) marks, while the marks of the last candidate called for the TPT for the post of Physiotherapist was thirty-six (36) marks. Since, the Advertisement provided that candidates at the rate of five (5) times the number of posts as per vacancy are to be called for the TPT, the petitioner was not amongst the five (5) candidates called for the TPT on account of his low marks. Further, it is stated that the respondent No. 6 secured forty-one (41) marks in the written examination and thirty-three (33) in the TPT and, therefore, having secured the highest in the TPT, he was selected to the post of Physiotherapist.
[6.] When the matter was listed on 17.06.2026, Court had called for the records of the selection. Today, Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, has produced the relevant records, which goes to show that the marks obtained by the last candidate who was called for TPT is thirty-six (36), while, the petitioner managed to score only thirty-two (32) marks. Going by the Advertisement, more particularly, Clause – VII, since there was only one post of Physiotherapist, five (5) candidates could be called for the TPT and the last candidate called for the TPT having secured thirty-six (36) marks, there was no scope for the petitioner to be called for the TPT. The claim of the petitioner to have scored the highest mark in the written examination is also not supported by any materials and in fact, he is not the highest scorer, as revealed by the records. He has secured only thirty-two (32) marks in the written examination.
[7.] Thus under the facts and circumstances and upon due consideration of the materials on record including the records produced by the learned State Counsel, the petitioner cannot be said to have a legitimate grievance. Accordingly, writ petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own cost.