SAMIDUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Uddin, 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 12.

(2.) On perusal of the record, it appears that there is no order accepting due service of notice on respondent nos. 8 and 12. From the steps taken, it appears that vide order dated 19.03.2018, the Court had allowed the petitioner to take steps for service of notice on respondent nos. 9 to 11 by dasti mode through respondent no.6 and accordingly, as per affidavit filed on 09.05.2018, the petitioner projects that notice was served on respondent no.6 for onward service on respondent nos. 9 to 11. Thus, no order has been passed by the Court to accept due service of notice on respondent no. 8 and 12. Nonetheless, in view of the nature of judgment proposed to be passed, the Court has proceeded to deliver the judgment in the absence of the respondent nos. 8 and 12.

(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 12 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.