NOZRUL ISLAM AHMED 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.

(2.) At the outset it is seen that notice was issued on respondent nos. 8 to 10 by registered post on 09.06.2017, and that as per office note dated 21.07.2018, neither acknowledgement card nor unserved notice had been received back. However, fresh steps had not been taken for service of notice on the said private respondents nor there is any judicial order of deeming due service of notice on the respondent nos. 8 to 10. However, in view of the nature of order proposed to be passed, the Court had proceeded to pass this judgment even in absence of the respondent nos. 8 to 10.

(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 10 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.