AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Zone of Selection,Date,Venue
a) Darrang & Udalguri,6th to 8th May/08,Mangaldoi Police Reserve
b) Sonitpur & North Lakhimpur,13th to 15th May/08,"D.T.C. Tezpur or Police Reserve, Tezpur.
c) Nagaon, Sibsagar, Jorhat & Golaghat",20th to 22nd May/08,D.T.C. Amoni.
d) Tinsukia & Dibrugarh,27th to 29th May/08,"D.T.C. Dibrugarh or Police Reserve, Tinsukia/ Dibrugarh.
e) Cachar,3rd & 4th June/08,"D.T.C. Cachar / Police Reserve, Cachar.
f) Force HQ & if any body left out,6th June/08,"C.T.I., Panikhaiti, Guwahati.
failed to report back for duty, despite issuance of notice. The petitioner Md. Sarfat Ali was discharged w.e.f. 1.11.1995, for remaining absent",,
without information. For similar reason, the petitioner Hom Bahadur Chetry was also released from deployment w.e.f. 14.9.2002. The next",,
petitioner Md. Abdul Salam was released from deployment w.e.f. 19.1.2009, for long absence and gross indiscipline. The 6th petitioner Md.",,
Khairad Ali in the WP(C) No.4622/2009, took voluntary discharge and was released from deployment on 26.11.1996.",,
10.2 Similar is the situation for the petitioners in the WP(C) No.4613/2009. The petitioner No.1, Haren Sonowal was discharged at his own",,
request and was released on 12.9.2005. The sepoy Prabhu Saya Kawa was released from deployment w.e.f. 28.6.2006, for his prolonged",,
unauthorized absence. The 4th petitioner Kartick Kharia was similarly released w.e.f. 10.12.1995.,,
Notwithstanding the above history, none of the affected ATPSF personnel challenged their respective discharge. They were out of service",,
during May/June, 2008, when the suitability for absorption of the ATPSF personnel was being assessed, by the authorities. Long after the well",,
publicized exercise in different venues in the state was concluded and those who met the physical parameters were absorbed in the ATPSF, the",,
petitioners have belatedly made this claim for allowing them to participate, in the long concluded eligibility exercise.",,
The High Court''s direction in the Civil Rule No.1584/1997, was not a time bound direction and in fact, the Court deliberately refrained from",,
providing a time schedule, for the exercise to be undertaken by the authorities. By the time, the suitability for absorption were being assessed in",,
May/June, 2008, the petitioners were out of service, either for long unauthorized absence or for voluntary request for discharge. They never",,
challenged their discharge orders and were not on active duty, when the assessment for absorption of the ATPSF personnel were being made.",,
Even at that stage, the petitioners never put forward any claim before the Government, to subject them to the suitability test and slept over their",,
rights if any, to claim consideration.",,
Moreover the petitioners are not in the same footing as those in active service. Hence, it will be inequitable to direct assessment of their",,
eligibility for absorption, as they were not members of the ATPSF organization, at the relevant time.",,
In view of above, I find the Writ Petitions to be devoid of legal merit and the same are thus dismissed. No cost.",,