Roshan Subba v. The Union of India and 8 Ors

ORDER Date : 08.11.2024 Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner responded to the employment notice dated 21/07/2018 for recruitment to the post of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018.

¶2According to the petitioner, he participated in the selection process and he secured marks more than the last candidate who was selected from the unreserved category. The petitioner belongs to the OBC category. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the marks declared by the Staff Selection Commission. It may be seen that the instant selection process happened in the year 2018 and according to the counsel for the petitioner, the final result was declared on 28.01.2021.

¶3At this stage Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC, who represent the respondent Union of India has produced two orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court i.e. order dated 28.06.2024 passed in WP(C) no. 3322 of 2024 (Sajal Sinha and 2 others Versus The Union of India and 9 others) and order dated 23.10.2024 passed in WP(C) no. 4425 of 2024 (Manash Protim Gogoi Versus The Union of India and 4 others), and submits that the instant writ petition is also hit by delay & laches and should be dismissed. Page No.# 4/4

¶4From a perusal of the said orders it is seen that the petitioners there in had also claimed similar relief after they were not selected in terms of the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 21.07.2018. The writ petitions were dismissed on account of delay and laches. The claim of the petitioner in the instant case from a perusal of the materials on record are found to be similar and identical.

¶5Since according to the petitioner himself the result were declared on

28.01.2021, the writ petition having been filed only on 06.09.2024, the same is found to be hit by delay and laches and accordingly the same is dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010185562024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/5391/2024o ROSHANoSUBBAo S/OoHARKAoBAHADURoSUBBA,oR/OoVILL-oRANGAoDEoRESERVE,oP.O.- MERBIL,oP.S.-LALUK,oDIST-oLAKHIMPUR,oASSAM,oPIN-784160 VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo8oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoUNIONoOFoINDIA,oMINISTRYo OFoHOMEoAFFAIRS,oNEWoDELHI-110001 2:THEoSTAFFoSELECTIONoCOMMISSIONo(SSC) oREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCHAIRMAN/SECRETARY oSTAFFoSELECTIONoCOMMISSION oBLOCK-12 oCGOoCOMPLEX oLODHIoROAD oNEWoDELHI-110003 3:THEoREGIONALoDIRECTORo(NER) oSTAFFoSELECTIONoCOMMISSION oRUKMINIoNAGAR oGUWAHATI-06 4:THEoDIRECTORoGENERAL oBORDERoSECURITYoFORCEo(BSF) oBLOCKoNO.o10 oLODHIoROAD oPRAGATIoVIHAR oNEWoDELHI-110003 5:THEoDIRECTORoGENERAL oCENTRALoINDUSTRIALoSECURITYoFORCEo(CISF) Page No.# 2/4 BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110003 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110003 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-793011 8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER FORCE (ITBP) BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SHAHASRA SEEMA BAL (SSB) 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-11002 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS. D. DEVI,MS K BARMAN,MS CHITRALEKHA DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS S BARUAH (CGC) Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO