1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 8010/2015 1. Atowar Rahman, Son of Basir Uddin, Village Bhairar Pam, P.O. Mandia, District- Barpeta. 2. Solaman Siddique, Son of Alowar Rahman Village- Mouri Pam, P.O. Mandia, District- Barpeta. - Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner % Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, Dispur, Guwahati -6. 2. The Director of Elementary Education, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19. 3. The District Elementary Education Officer, Barpeta. - Respondents BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI For the petitioners : Mr. H.A. Sarkar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R. Mazumdar, S.C., Education (Higher), Department. Date of hearing and judgment : 04.01.2016. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. H. A. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Standing counsel, Education (Higher) Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Directorate of Elementary Education Department, Assam, for the post of Junior Assistant (Field Level Officers) under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Assam, the two petitioners had responded by submitting their candidature within the stipulated period. By the aforesaid advertisement, total 61 numbers of posts were sought to be filled up and the applications were to be received only through online within 16.10.2015 to 02.11.2015. 2 The case projected in the writ petition is that in the midnight on 22.11.2015, a circular was displayed in the website of the respondent department indicating that the date for verification of documents was fixed on 23.11.2015. It is stated in the writ petition that because of paucity of time, it was not possible for them to appear before the appropriate authority for verification of documents although their names were listed at Serial Nos. 412 and 418 in the circular. Faced with the aforesaid predicament, the petitioners submitted an application before the respondent No. 2, on 07.12.2015, for extension of time to accept their documents for verification, but no action having been taken, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking redressal of their grievances. 3. Accordingly, prayer is made in this writ petition to allow the petitioners to submit their documents for verification. 4. Although the case has been listed for the first time today, Mr. Mazumdar has the requisite instructions. The case was taken up, initially, before the recess and taking note of the submission of Mr. Mazumdar that the date of examination is fixed tomorrow, he was requested to take instructions as to whether it will be possible for the respondents to make arrangements for the petitioners to appear in the examination. After the recess, the case is again taken up for consideration. He has submitted that he has taken instructions from the appropriate authorities and the same are to the effect that it will not be possible at this stage to allow the petitioners to sit in the examination. Mr. Mazumdar has submitted that it is entirely incorrect for the petitioners to say that only in the midnight of 22.11.2015, a circular was displayed in the website of the respondent department. He has produced two advertisements, which were published on 20.11.2015 in two daily newspapers – one in English, published in the “The Assam Tribune” and the other in a vernacular, published in “Janasadharan” and, accordingly, he submits that the very basis of the contention raised by the petitioners is factually not correct. It is also submitted by him that from 7-00 P.M. of 20.11.2015 to 7-00 P.M. of 21.11.2015 the news of fixing the date of verification of documents was prominently disseminated in the electronic media. In the advertisement itself it is indicated that the candidates will get their names, registration number, date and venue for verification of documents in the website from 21.11.2015. It is submitted by him that the process of verification of documents in different districts of Assam was undertaken from 23.11.2015 to 01.12.2015. According to him, the petitioners ought to have approached the authorities, if at all there were some genuine reasons for which they were not able to take part in 3 the verification process, within a reasonable time, while the verification process was still on, but they waited till 07.12.2015 to submit their representation. 5. In the aforesaid factual matrix, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at this stage no writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondent authorities to undertake the exercise of verification of the documents of the petitioners. 6. From the statements made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners were aware, at least, on 22.11.2015, that they were required to proceed to the verification centre to enable the respondent authorities to verify their documents. True, in a given case, the prospective candidate may not be able to present documents for verification, for good and sufficient reasons, on three days’ notice. But, in the instant case, the fact remains that in spite of the petitioners having come to know about the verification process on 22.11.2015, they had not taken any steps immediately to apprise the authorities that they could not submit their documents for verification and to pray for extension of time to submit the same. Even though the writ petition was filed on 14.12.2015, the same was in defective form and the defects came to be rectified on 22.12.2015. Much water had flown down the river Brahmaputra in the meantime. According to Mr. Mazumdar, different sets of OMR sheets have been prepared for the candidates and only fixed number of OMR sheets had been dispatched to the respective examination centers and the examination is being conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, which also, incidentally, has not been made a party-respondent in this writ petition. 7. This Court tried to explore the possibility, pending consideration of the case of the petitioners, as to whether, as an interim measure, it would be possible for the respondents to make arrangements to enable the petitioners to appear in the examination slated for 05.01.2016. Going by the stand taken by the respondents, it appears to the Court that such a course of action is not possible at this eleventh hour. If no interim order, as aforesaid, can be passed, the writ petition will be automatically rendered infructuous. 8. Delay, in the context of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be judged and considered not by number of days but in the contextual setting in which the writ petition had come to be filed. In the instant case, delay on the part of the writ petitioners to seek immediate remedial action has resulted in a situation in which no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners at this juncture. 4 9. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. 10. The documents produced by Mr. Mazumdar is placed on record of this case. JUDGE RK 5 .