RANTU DUTTA Vs. ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned senior advocate, assisted by Mr. J.P. Kachari, the learned advocate for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. J. Rongpi, the learned advocate for the Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. ('APDCL' for short), i.e. respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. S.M. Baruah, the learned advocate for the private respondents No. 6 to 9.

(2.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the 12 petitioners herein have projected that the petitioners No.1 to 10 were persons from OBC category, petitioner No. 11 belonged from the Schedule Caste category and the petitioner No.12 was a person from the General category. Since the year 2008, the petitioners were engaged by the APDCL as casual labourers and/or outsourced Sahayak for maintenance of L.T. and H.T. line and other works under the Gaurisagar Electrical Sub Division and Sivasagar Electrical Sub Division. By advertisement in newspapers, the APDCL invited applications for filling up 1064 posts of Trainee Sahayak as per criteria and qualifications as mentioned therein. One of the conditions mentioned in the employment advertisement, which appears to be one of the causes on which this writ petition is based is that the applications for the posts of Sahayak should be submitted in offices which covered their place of residence and that the applicants would be considered where application form was submitted. The candidates including the petitioners participated in the interview held for selection and accordingly, the authorities had published the provisional select list for all 93 posts of Sahayak, where candidates other than the petitioners were selected. The selection of private respondents No.6 to 9 have been challenged, inter-alia, on the ground that they were not permanent residents within Sivasagar Electrical Circle, that the said respondents were selected on pick and choose basis, the said respondents had lesser experience than the petitioners.

(3.) The learned senior advocate for the petitioners had meticulously referred to various documents on record and had referred to the statements made in the writ petition as well as to the stand of the respondents in their affidavit- in- opposition and the statements made in the affidavit- in- reply filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondents had admitted that the respondents No.6 to 9 were the residents of Dibrugarh District, which would disentitle them to apply outside their home district and, as such, it is submitted that the selection of the respondents No.6 to 9 stood vitiated, being contrary to the terms and conditions of the employment notice/ advertisement as published by the APDCL. It is submitted that from the contents of the affidavit- in- opposition filed by the respondents No.1 to 5 it was apparent that the said authorities were misinterpreting the relevant domicile clause appearing in the employment advertisement at their whims and caprice. It is submitted that the selection process itself was vitiated as the APDCL authorities were giving a go-bye to the domicile clause, because there is a possibility that many prospective candidates did not participate in the selection process due to the domicile clause contained in the employment advertisement. Hence, it is submitted that the selection process and/or the appointment of the private respondents No.6 to 9 be interfered with in terms of the prayer made in the writ petition.