SAMSUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate, Assam. None appears for the private respondents in spite of service of notice.

(2.) In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dtd. 10/9/2021 passed in WP(C) No.5238/2019 in which the appellant had questioned the selection process in respect of Project Assistant for the district of Hailakandi on the ground that the same was done in violation of the advertisement dtd. 7/3/2019, which clearly mentions that the candidature will be eligible in his/her own district only and no applicant will be entitled for the post outside his own district, and also contrary to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, which provides that mandatorily local candidates should be engaged. The authorities, however, proceeded to appoint the respondent No.6 who does not belong to Hailakandi district but belongs to Cachar district, which, according to the appellant, is illegal being contrary to the terms of the advertisement and guidelines issued by the Government of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in challenging the aforesaid finding submits that the subsequent advertisement dtd. 10/6/2019 was not a different advertisement. It was in continuation with the earlier advertisement dtd. 7/3/2019 in respect of the same recruitment process and, as such, the Selection Committee by taking advantage of the Government notification dtd. 31/5/2019 could not have deviated from the terms and conditions of the initial advertisement issued on 7/3/2019 and provide appointment to a person who does not belong to Hailakandi district in violation of the advertisement and guidelines issued by the Central Government.