High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 02 GAU CK 0032

SABITRI SHARMA vs DR B BOROOAH CANCER INSTITUTE and ORS

Gauhati High Court · Decided on 1 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hrishikesh Roy
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
2122 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

17 paragraphs · 312 words
1.

The petitioner is unrepresented when the case is called. The B. Borooah Cancer Institute and their Director (respondent No.1 & 2) are

represented by Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel. The Standing Counsel for the Health Department, Ms. D. Bora, appears for the

respondent No.4.

2.

For the respondents, Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel submits that this matter has become infructuous and that may be the reason for

the absence of the petitioner''s lawyers. The Counsel points out that the Medical Officer (Palliative Medicine) at the Cancer Institute was appointed

on merit, in pursuant to a rigorous selection process. On the petitioner''s challenge to the advertisement dated 10.3.2010, the Senior Counsel

submits that the petitioner does not have the prescribed certificate qualification in Palliative Medicine and was therefore, ineligible for the Grade-A

post, in the Cancer Institute.

3.

The post of Medical Officer (Palliative Medicine) is a specialized post for the Cancer Hospital and the norms required recruitment through open

advertisement on national basis. The merit of the applicants were assessed by a six Members Selection Committee with representative doctors

from TATA Memorial Hospital, the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital and the Director of the Cancer Institute headed the Committee. The

records produced by the learned Senior Counsel suggest that recommendation for appointment was made through a bona fide process. Following

the assessment by the Selection Committee, Dr. Kabindra Bhagabati with his aggregate score of 74 was placed in the 1st position and he was

appointed to the post on 29.6.2010 and since then, he is serving in the Institute.

4.

The above notings reflect that the appointment was made through a transparent and competitive process and therefore, no relief can be granted

to the unsuccessful litigant. Be that as it may, since the petitioner''s Counsel are absent, the case is dismissed for non-prosecution, rather than on

merit.