MUKUT ALOM MOLLAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's claim for his appointment on the basis of select list of 1994 at Annexure-1 pertaining to Jaleswar Constituency is based on the contention that the select list still holds good which is still being utilised by the concerned authorities for making appointment. He further contends that though the petitioner's name occurred at serial No. 15 in the select list whereas the name of respondent No. 4 was at serial No. 41, but appointment has been given to that respondent but not to the petitioner. Entire gamut of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though name of both respondent No. 4 and the petitioner finds place in the select list in relation to Jaleswar Constituency, the respondent No. 4 was illegally appointed. Annexure-I has been failed to substantiate the case of petitioner in the writ petition, it purports to be the copy of the select list, the same, however, does not disclose the name of the respondent No. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, orally informed the Court that name of respondent No. 4 appeared at serial Net 54 in that very list of Jaleswar Constituency. The learned counsel thereupon was asked to produce the original list which was in his possession. After some hesitation learned counsel produced it which purports to be an authentic select list prepare,d by the Sub-Divisional Advisory Board for Goalpara, West Constituency for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher of Middle School of Goalparaj District. On perusal of the list it is apparent that the name of respondent No. 4 does not at all figure in the merit list prepared for the Jaleswar Constituency whereas petitioner's name figures at serial No. 15 of that Constituency. Name of respondent No. 4 however, figures at serial No. 41 of the Goalpara West Constituency in the select list. From the above it would appear that the petitioner wanted to create wrong impression in the court's mind that by appointing respondent No. 4, State of Assam has violated the Constitutional mandate in Article 16 which insures fairness in the matter of appointment in State services. The mandate in Art. 16 requires appointment of selected candidates in the select list prepared by the District Elementary Education on the basis of the respective position in the merit list. In view of the fact that names of petitioner and respondent No. 4 occur in different select lists question of better merit of petitioner does not arise inasmuch as appointments are made constituency wise. Mr. A. Hai, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assist the Court properly while arguing the writ petition. Learned Counsel was not very fair to the Court in not producing to the Court the case in the right perspective. PETITIONER who is an educated person should have possessed some sense of responsibility towards the Court. The Courts are in place to provide justice to the oppressed and not to become source of enrichment to the undeserving people who prima-facie do not qualify for justice.

(2.) THIS Court, therefore, takes very strong exception to the unfair practice which has been adopted by the petitioner in this case, writ petition is therefore dismissed without examination of its merit. It is an established rule that this Court would decline to hear a case which is based on apparent falsehood. Since petitioner is guilty of making false statement with the intention of misleading the Court for procuring favourable orders for himself he shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of cost. I further direct for issue of notice of Contempt of Court to the petitioner, he is called upon to show cause as to why appropriate punishment be not awarded to him for his deceitful act of knowingly making false statement before the Court by givimg wrong facts in the writ petition in an attempt to procure favourable orders. Petitioner shall appear before the Court with his show cause personally on 27.3.2000. In case petitioner fails to deposit the cost of Rs. 1,000/- before the Registrar within one month's time he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. In case the amount is deposited by the petitioner, it shall be made available to the Legal Aid Board of the State of Assam. Since petitioner and his counsel are both present in the Court, therefore, no notice of contempt need be served on him. Despite dismissal of the writ petition it shall be listed again on 27.3.2000 for orders in relation to the contempt proceedings. Let this orderbe given wide circulation for the knowledge of all concerned.