THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

02.06.2023 ORDER Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. H. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the State. The writ petitioner herein was a candidate in the recruitment drive initiated by the respondents for filling up a number of Grade-IV posts in Assam Police, Assam Commando Battalions and DGCD & CGHG, Assam, Civil Defence & Home Guard, Forest Department, Fire Service etc. After completion of the selection process the select list had been published. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam submits that appointments have already been made from the select list published by the department. The petitioner contends that since the cut off mark was not disclosed by the authorities, hence, he is not aware as to the reason why, his name was not included in the select list. Since there are vacant post still available, hence, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to appoint him against one of the vacant posts. As would be evident from the projection made in the writ petition, the petitioner is not aware as to whether he had secured the minimum cut off mark to be included in the final merit list of the selected candidates. Notwithstanding the same, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus. In the opinion of this Court, such a writ petition is wanton, speculative and is aimed at inviting the court into a roving enquiry in a manner which would be impermissible in the eyes of law. If the petitioner was actually serious about his claim, there was nothing preventing him from making an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 making relevant queries. There is no explanation Page No.# 3/3 as to why the petitioner did not file any application under the RTI Act, 2005 seeking the relevant information before contemplating filing of the writ petition. Under the circumstances, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to approach this Court afresh once a proper case is made out on facts. JUDGE Comparing Assistant