A Decade Later, Gauhati High Court Directs SC Woman Who Was Wrongfully Treated As 'General Category' Be Appointed To Existing/Future Vacancy

The Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam Government to appoint a Schedule Caste Community woman, who was wrongfully denied of her appointment as Ward Girl in the year 2012 by terming her to be a General Category Candidate, in any existing or future vacancy of the said post.

The single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed,

“when the petitioner was belonging to the SC category which is granted several relaxation and benefits, there is no reason to assume that she had applied as a General Category candidate. There is also no rebuttal of the fact that the petitioner is an SC candidate and there is also no assertion in the affidavit-in-opposition that she had applied as the General Category candidate.”

The case of the petitioner was that she belongs to the Schedule Caste Community and had participated in a recruitment process initiated vide an advertisement dated October 21, 2011 for appointment as Ward Girls in the Gauhati Medical College. It was the grievance of the petitioner that one candidate who secured less marks than her was granted the benefit of appointment instead of her.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied under the category of SC however, she was treated as a General (Unreserved) category candidate and in the said process, was deprived of appointment. It was further submitted that the marks obtained by the petitioner in the SC category were more than the marks of the candidate who was appointed instead (respondent no. 6).

The Standing Counsel appearing for State's Health & Family Welfare Department submitted that the appointments were made in the year 2012 and more than a decade has passed and therefore the same may not be interfered with. It was also submitted that the category of  respondent no. 6 as SC is not disputed.

The Court noted:

“In paragraph-3 of the writ petition, the petitioner has clearly stated that she belongs to the SC community and the certificate has also been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. A prima facie look at the said certificate demonstrates that the same has been issued by the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur in the year 1997, i.e. much prior to the recruitment process. The said statement made in paragraph 3 has not been denied by the respondent authorities in the affidavit-in-opposition dated 01.02.2013 filed through the respondent no. 4. A further statement has been made by the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit dated 04.02.2018.”

The Court observed that there is no dispute with regard to the category of the petitioner which is SC, however, the petitioner was treated to be a General (Unreserved) Category candidate and therefore in spite of securing more marks than the SC candidate who was selected she did not get the benefit of appointment.

The Court opined that the categorization of the petitioner as a General Category candidate (Unreserved) is an error apparent on the face of the records.

Thus, the Court directed the respondents that the petitioner be considered and appointed in any existing vacancy of Ward Girl or in any vacancies which would occur in the immediate future without disturbing the services of the private respondents and such appointment would be on the strength of her selection in the duly conducted recruitment process.

“It is further made clear that the age bar would not apply in the present case as the petitioner was wrongfully denied of her appointment in spite of securing marks which would lead to an appointment if she was properly categorized as an SC category,” the Court said.

Case Title: Smti Minakshi Medhi v. The State of Assam & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 86

Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Click Here To Read/Download Order