DILIP BARMAN Vs. NUMULIGARH REFINERY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

(2.) Notice was issued by the order dated 29.05.2009 without any interim order and on 11.05.2005, Mr. I.H. Borbhuiyan, learned counsel had made a submission that the case be listed for hearing. Apart from the two dates, this writ petition was not listed on any other occasion. It being a matter pending since the year 2009, this Court deems it appropriate that in the aforesaid circumstance, this writ petition be taken up for its final consideration even in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the selection process adopted by the respondent Numuligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) for appointment of 7 (seven) numbers of fitters under the said organization. It is stated in paragraph-2 of the petition that the petitioner is one of the son of Anil Barman, whose 8 bighas land had been taken away by the respondent for construction of Numuligarh Refinery Township in the year 2003. In paragraph-3, the petitioner refers to certain advertisement through the District Employment Exchange, Golaghat wherein, his name was enrolled by the District Employment Exchange and states that he was advised to appear in the fitter test vide letter dated 09.08.2007 of the respondent authorities. Subsequently, the petitioner appeared in the test and he was also called for the interview by letter dated 29.02.2008.