MD FULCHAN ALI SK Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.R. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent no.1 and Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. R. Deka, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7. None appears on call the private respondent nos. 8 to 27.

(2.) On perusal of the record, it appears that there is no order accepting due service of notice on respondent no.27 and although on 24.11.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner had prayed for taking steps on respondent nos. 9 to 11, 13, 20, 21, 23 and 25 to 27, the Court had allowed the petitioner to take steps for service of notice only on respondent nos. 9 to 11, 13, 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26 by dasti mode. Thus, there is no order to accept due service of notice on the respondent no. 27. Nonetheless, in view of the nature of order proposed to be passed, the Court has proceeded to deliver the judgment in absence of the respondent no. 27.

(3.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the engagement of the private respondent nos. 8 to 27 as trainee Sahayak, and also prayed for a direction to the APDCL authorities, i.e. respondent nos.2 to 7 to select and appoint the petitioner as Sahayak.