JUMBOM KARLO Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K. Ete, learned counsel for the writ-petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. K. Jini, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. None appeared for and on behalf of respondent No. 7. Heard Mr. K. Ete, learned counsel for the writ-petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. K. Jini, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. None appeared for and on behalf of respondent No. 7.

(2.) BY this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction of like nature to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the writ-petitioner and accommodate him in any post likely to fluctuate.

(3.) ALL the respondents including the State-respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition. The respondents, inter alia, contended that since the writ-petitioner became unsuccessful in the recruitment process, there cannot be any question of arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the respondent authorities.