STATE OF ASSAM Vs. BORNALI TAMULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. TC Chutia, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. M Hazarika, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 Smti Bornali Tamuli. It is noticed that the respondent No. 2 is the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the WPT and BC Department, respondent No. 3 is the Assam Public Service Commission, respondent No. 4 is the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Personnel (B) Department, respondent No. 5 is the Commissioner, Central Assam Division and the respondent No. 6 is the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In other words, all the respondents other than respondent No. 3 are various officials under the Government of Assam. The appeal is instituted by the State of Assam through the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Co-operation Department. Considering the incongruity as indicated above, we deem that this is a writ appeal by the State of Assam represented by the Chief Secretary instead of it being through only the Co-operation department. Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned senior counsel has represented the respondent No. 3 Assam Public Service Commission (APSC).

(2.) The respondent No. 1 Smti Bornali Tamuli who is a person otherwise of the general category, married to Sri Mridul Kumar Borah in the year 1992, where Sri Mridul Kumar Borah belong to the Schedule Caste community. On the strength of her marriage with Sri Mridul Kumar Borah, the respondent No. 1 was issued a Schedule Caste certificate as per the certificate No. 4218 dtd. 20/8/1996 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. The respondent No. 1 appeared in the combined competitive examination of the year 1998-99 conducted by the APSC as a Schedule Caste candidate, where in the aforesaid certificate dt. 20/8/1996 was relied upon. In the combined competitive examination, the respondent No. 1 was selected on merit as a Schedule Caste candidate and on the basis of such selection by the APSC she was appointed as an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the Co-operation Department of the Government of Assam. Later on, various complaints were received by the authorities in the Government of Assam that under the law the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to the benefit of a Schedule Caste certificate and therefore, she could not have appeared in the combined competitive examination as a Schedule Caste candidate.

(3.) The complaints resulted in certain process being undertaken by the Cooperation Department of the Government of Assam which resulted in a satisfaction being arrived at that under the law, the respondent No. 1 Smti Bornali Tamuli is not entitled to the benefits of the law of reservation to be employed on the strength of the Schedule Caste certificate dtd. 20/8/1996. It is stated that in the meantime, the Schedule Caste certificate dtd. 20/8/1996 issued to the respondent No. 1 Smti Bornali Tamuli had been cancelled.