SANJEEB KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.D. Saikia learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. S. Borkataki, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 and Mr. R. Hussain, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 7. None appears for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, in spite of notices being served on them.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is that an advertisement for appointment of 1 (one) post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist and Peon was issued by the District and Sessions Judge/Chairman, District legal Services Authority, Goalpara, vide notification dated 21.11.2003. The petitioner applied for the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist. After holding the written, type and viva - voce tests a select list was prepared on 8.6.2004 and published on 16.6.2004. Out of five candidates selected for the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1. The respondent No. 7 and 6 were placed at serial No. 2 and 5 respectively in the said select list. While the petitioner was expecting appointment order to the said post, the present respondent No. 6 filed a writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 5263/2004, which was disposed of vide an order dated 29.7.2004 directing the respondent No. 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of furnishing a certified copy of the order. On receipt of the aforesaid order, respondent No. 4 considered the case of the respondent No. 6 (petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition) and prepared a fresh select list cancelling the select list dated published on 16.6.2004. The notice was issued by the respondent No. 4 on 25.8.2004 publishing the new panel/select list showing the name of the present respondent No. 6 at serial No. 1 in the reserved category and placing the petitioner at serial No. 4 under unreserved category. This notice publishing the fresh panel is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) MR . Borkataki, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 with all fairness, submits that the post of L.D. Assistant-cum-Typist in question in a single and isolated post meant for the District Legal Services Authority, Goalpara and as such the reservation policy as adopted by the State Government would not be applicable to the present case.