RAJEN LAGSHU Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal, at the instance of the writ petitioner, seeks to challenge the order- dated 29.8.1998 passed in CRNo. 576/95 by which the learned Single Judge has refused the prayers made in the writ petition.

(2.) The facts which will be necessary to be recited for an effective determination of the questions arising in the writ appeal may be briefly noticed at this stage. An advertisement dated 4.12.1991 was published in the leading Newspapers of the State inviting applications, inter alia for filling up 11 vacant posts of Project Manager in the District Industries Centres of Assam. The advertisement in question also sought applications for filling up 22 posts of Functional Manager/Deputy Director in the Industries Department of the State. The petitioner had submitted his applications for both the Posts. At the conclusion of the selection process, which was conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission, a Select List dated 11.10.1993 was forwarded to the appointing authority. Insofar as the post of Project Manager is concerned, 10 candidates were included in the main Select List which also consisted of another 10 names of wait listed candidates. The name of the petitioner appeared at SI. No. 19 i.e.. in the list of wait-listed candidates. In-so-far as the post of Functional Manager is concerned, the name of the petitioner appeared as a selected candidate. The appointing authority appointed the first 10 candidates in the Merit/Select list in the post of Project Manager. Subsequently, appointment was offered to 11th candidate in order of merit i.e. first person in the Waiting list. Aggrieved, the writ petition was filed seeking interference of this Court with the appointment of the aforesaid candidate who was arrayed as Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition. A further direction for the appointment of the petitioner against the said 11th vacancy on the ground that as per 20 point Roster, the said vacancy has to be filled up by a ST(Plains) candidate, to which category the petitioner belongs, was also sought for. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that as the petitioner was placed below the Respondent No. 4 in the Merit/Select list he cannot be understood to have a legitimate grievance with regard to the appointment of the said Respondent No. 4. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that, in the meantime, the petitioner had been appointed in the post of Functional Manager. In view of the above the learned Single Judge thought it proper to hold that the directions prayed for in the writ petition ought not be allowed. Aggrieved, this writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) We have heard Mr. A. K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant, Mrs. B. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the official Respondents and Mr. K. H. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4. We have also heard Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the newly impleaded Respondent No. 5 in the appeal.