I.A.(Civil)/2588/2026 of DR GEETASHREE BORI Vs SMT SONIA LANGTHASA on 13 August 2026

O R D E R

14.08.2026.

Heard Ms. P. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard

Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel being assisted by Mr. H. Rahman, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1/writ petitioner, Mr. A. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Tribal Affairs Department, Assam appearing for the opposite party Nos.2—5 and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the opposite party No.6. By way of this interlocutory application, the applicant seeks impleadment as the respondent No.7 in the connected WP(C) No.3981/2026. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present application are that the applicant, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (Plain) community, participated in the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Resource Management under Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.12.2023. The applicant claims to have been duly qualified and to have participated in the said selection process. The petitioner in the connected writ petition, who is the opposite party No.1 herein, was selected and appointed to the said post. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a complaint before the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC), Department of Tribal Affairs (Plains), Assam, questioning the Scheduled Tribe status claimed by the petitioner. Upon verification, the SLSC arrived at a finding that the petitioner did not belong to the State of Assam for the purpose of the Scheduled Tribe status claimed by him. Ms. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the aforesaid determination arose out of the complaint lodged by the applicant, who was himself an aspirant to the same selection process. It is contended that the determination regarding the petitioner’s tribal status has a direct bearing upon the petitioner’s selection and appointment and, consequently, upon the rights and interests of the applicant in the selection process. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant is a necessary and proper party for effective adjudication of the issues arising in the connected writ petition. Per contra, Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently opposes the prayer for impleadment. His submission is that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the writ petition, particularly as no relief has been sought by the petitioner against the applicant and the applicant has no independent role in the lis as framed in the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is true that the applicant is not a person against whom any specific relief has been sought in the connected writ petition. However, the question of impleadment cannot be determined merely on the basis of whether a substantive relief has been claimed against the proposed party. The Court is required to consider whether the presence of such person would be necessary or proper for an effective and complete adjudication of the issues arising in the proceedings and for avoiding any possibility of multiplicity of proceedings. In the present case, the applicant was himself an aspirant to the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.12.2023. It is also not in dispute, prima facie, that the proceedings before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which culminated in the determination concerning the Scheduled Tribe status of the petitioner, were initiated pursuant to the complaint lodged by the applicant. The determination of the petitioner’s tribal status may, therefore, have a bearing upon the validity of his selection and appointment and, consequently, upon the competing claim or interest of the applicant in the said selection process. In such circumstances, although no relief has been directly sought against the applicant, his presence would facilitate a complete and effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the writ petition. His impleadment would also ensure that any order passed by this Court concerning the selection and appointment in question is made after affording an opportunity of hearing to a person who has participated in the same selection process and at whose instance the proceedings concerning the petitioner’s tribal status came to be initiated. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the applicant is a proper party whose presence is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the connected writ petition. Accordingly, the interlocutory application is allowed. The applicant shall be impleaded as respondent No.7 in the connected WP(C) No.3981/2026. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the connected writ petition shall take necessary steps for incorporation of the amended cause title and shall submit the same before the Registry. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant