REENA BARO Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the BTC as well as Mr. M Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.

(2.) The matter relates to selection and appointment of a Sweeper in the BTC. The selection was conducted in the year 2008-2009 and the petitioner had appeared in the selection process under Roll No. SW-71. The petitioner in the present writ petition has made a claim that though she was selected for the post of Sweeper, the respondent No. 4 had been appointed as Sweeper due to a fraud played by the respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and their addresses are same and their father's names are almost the same. While the petitioner's father name is Late Bapa Ram Baro, the respondent No. 4's father name is Bapu Ram Boro. In view of the above, this Court had directed the respondents to conduct an enquiry into the allegation made by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware that the respondent No. 4 had taken her place as a Sweeper, inasmuch as, the petitioner did not know that she had been selected. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the fraud committed by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner has not been appointed to the post of Sweeper.